HomeMy WebLinkAboutRemonstrance by Kingswood Homeowners Association & Other Remonstrators 08-11-04
'U
~ 0"1 (Xf, '" S U
WRITTEN REMONSTRANCE
BY
KINGSWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
AND
u
OTHER REMONSTRATORS
FIRST SET
AUGUST 11, 2004
u
.. "::;'''
~'
I
u
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WRITTEN REMONSTRANCE BY KINGSWOOD HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION. INC. AND OTHER REMONSTRATORS
FIRST SET
The Parties
page 2
The Application
page 4
The Issues
page 6
Findings of Fact
page 16
Special Use Decisions
page 24
Commitments Tendered by Remonstrators-Partial Set
page 29
Conclusions and Recommendations
U Financial Information on Applicant
Exhibits:
page 33
Tax Assessment Information on Martin Marietta/American
Aggregates and E. & H. Mueller Development, LLC
Tax Assessment Information on Kingswood, Wood
Creek, and Sycamore Farms
The Gasper Letter
The Wittman Report
The Dr. Leads Letter
The Mundell Letter
p
U
:-.
I'~~'--
u
u
WRITTEN REMONSTRANCE
BY
KINGSWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
AND
OTHER REMONSTRATORS
FIRST SET
AUGUST 11, 2004
u
>---.- ~.-
Q
u
u
I
I
STATE OF INDIANA
)
)SS:
)
CARMEL/CLAY ADVISORY BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS
DOCKET NO. 04040024-SU
COUNTY OF HAMILTON
In Re: Application for Special Use Approval for
Sand and Gravel Operation on 96.921 acres
(Mueller South)
WRITTEN REMONSTRANCE BY KINGSWOOD HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION. INC. AND OTHER REMONSTRATORS
FIRST SET
COME NOW William D. McEvoy, Larry J. Kane, Greg Policka, Rex Weiper,
Holland C. Detke, Phil Kincaid, and Kingswood Homeowners Association, Inc.
(collectively, the "Remonstrators"), by counsel, and file with the Carmel/Clay Advisory
Board of Zoning Appeals (the "BZA") their first set of written comments in connection
with their remonstrance against the Application ("Application") filed by Martin Marietta
Materials, Inc. ("MM") for a Special Use to permit sand and gravel mining on the land
known as "Mueller South," docketed as number 04040024-SU. The Remonstrators
reserve the right to supplement these materials in the future and to present oral
comments at the hearing(s) on this matter. All such written materials shall be deemed
to be incorporated into the oral comments at the hearing( s) on this matter unless
specifically withdrawn or modified at or before such hearing(s).
There are several reasons why the BZA should deny the Application. Some are
based on the nuisances perpetrated againstthe residents of the Kingswood subdivision
and surrounding property owners; some involve the potential loss of community assets
and increases in community expenses for the City of Carmel and its citizens; some
involve unnecessary risks to life and property; some involve the public policy of the City
of Carmel; and, some are strictly legal questions that would serve to prevent the use of
the property as proposed by MM. Simply stated, MM has failed to meet the statutory
criteria necessary to allow the BZA to responsibly approve its Application for sand and
gravel mining on the Mueller South. The Remonstrators therefore respectfully request
that this BZA deny the Application.
1
Q
u
The Parties
~~-----:
'-.)
'-.)
u
-.-
I
The Parties. There are three main parties in this case: the Petitioner, American
Aggregates Corporation, d/b/a Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., the Remonstrators, and
the Department of Community Services.
(a) Based on public information, attached hereto as exhibits, the
Remonstrators have learned that MM is a foreign corporation having its principal offices
in Raleigh, N.C. Its market capitalization as of August 1, 2004, was $2,110,000,000.
As of December 31, 2003, MM had total book assets of $2,330,093,000 and
shareholder book equity of $1,129,847,000. MM'is consistently profitable, generating
net income applicable to common shareholders of over $93 million in 2003. Similarly,
cash flow from operations has consistently been greater than $200 million, being $277
million in 2003. The President, Stephen Zelnak, Jr., is paid $4,760,000, and at least
three other officers are paid in excess of $1,000,000. The list of "insiders" is attached
hereto as an exhibit, and the 100 insider trades that occurred between September 5,
2002 and February 26, 2004 are set forth in another attached exhibit. The principal
owners of MM are institutions and mutual funds, accounting for 95 percent of the
outstanding shares. For instance, Davis New York Venture Fund owns 8.36 percent
and Davis Selected Advisers, LP owns another 13.39 percent. The list of principal
owners is attached hereto as an exhibit. MM has operations in many states in the
Midwest and East Coast and is one of the largest companies in its industry, raw
materials. As set forth in an attached exhibit, the total assessed value of the MM
properties in Clay Township is $6,683,500 and the total assessed value of the Mueller
South property is $341,700.
(b) The individual Remonstrators are citizens of the City of Carmel, all living in
the Kingswood subdivision. Kingswood is zoned S-2/Residence District under the
Zoning Ordinance. Each individual Remonstrator has a property interest in Kingswood
and each is disturbed on a regular basis by the operations of the Carmel Sand and
Gravel Plant (north of the Mueller South land) and the Indianapolis North Plant (south of
the Mueller South land). The Kingswood Homeowners Association, Inc., is an Indiana
non-profit corporation with 221 members whose families live in Kingswood. Kingswood
is located adjacent to Wood Creek, another subdivision that borders the Carmel Sand
and Gravel Plant and its lake, and Sycamore Farms, a subdivision located north of
Kingswood and west of Wood Creek, but sharing the same watershed, street accesses,
blasting vibrations, traffic problems, and aquifer. As set forth in an attached exhibit, the
total assessed values of Kingswood, Wood Creek, and Sycamore Farms is
$98,743,000.
(c) The Department of Community Services ("DOCS") is a department of the
City of Carmel and functions as the planning department for the City of Carmel and Clay
Township, Hamilton County, Indiana. The Department consists of two planners and
various support staff. There are no civil engineers, mining engineers, hydrologists,
appraisers, or attorneys on the regular staff. Therefore, when expert analysis is
required, it must be obtained through independent contractor agreements with third
parties at the expense of the City of Carmel, unless the expense can be passed on.
The DOCS has a statutory right to present evidence at the hearings of the BZA and will
2
u
u
u
,.
I
have issued a staff report. Members of the DOCS have spent since December 2002
working on this Application, through numerous meetings, requesting more and more
information, analyzing and paying experts to analyze the information provided by MM,
causing independent studies to be run to better understand the effects of the
Application, and meeting with MM and the Remonstrators. The DOCS has also been
involved in the various pieces of litigation brought by MM to try to overturn decisions by
the BZA. In other words, the DOCS has spent a very significant portion of their last two
years trying to understand the Application and design commitments for MM that will
allow the mining to proceed without harm to the Remonstrators and the environment.
(d) Apart from the Remonstrators, it is anticipated that there will be substantial
numbers of the general public, mostly neighbors of Mueller South, who will want to
express their opinions with respect to the Application. Such individuals will be
expressing their own opinions, unaffected by the opinions of the Remonstrators or their
counsel.
3
u
u
The Applica~ion
u
o
Q
Q
The Application. The Application covers a 96.921-acre tract of farmland and
wooded creek side located at the southwest corner of 106th St. and Hazel Dell Parkway
and zoned as S-1/Residence District under the Zoning Ordinance. The owner of the
land, E. & H. Mueller Development, LLC, is retaining several of its acres at the corner,
and has leased the 96.921 acres to MM. While the Remonstrators have not been
provided a copy of such lease, it is assumed that MM has the power to file this
Application and to make whatever commitments may be required by the BZA for
approval, or that MM will be able to convince E. & H. Mueller Development, LLC to join
in such commitments. Such authority should be adequately demonstrated to the DOCS
and the BZA before this Application is considered because the joinder of the landowner,
E. & H. Mueller Development, LLC, in the Application is jurisdictional.
The proposed mining will involve the dewatering of an important aquifer used by
the City of Carmel to produce water for domestic use of its citizens, including the
Remonstrators. The proposed mining is but a precursor for more substantial mining,
including the blasting of a wall of limestone 185 high, approximately 2000 feet wide
(east to west), and approximately 1500 feet long (north to south), within one-quarter
mile of dozens of expensive homes, within a few hundred feet of several .wells owned
and operated by the City of Carmel, within a few hundred feet of Carmelot Park and the
City of Carmel water wells located therein, and within one mile of hundreds of expensive
homes, including those lived in by the individual Remonstrators. In addition to its
surface mining Application, MM also has on file with this BZA an underground mining
application for this same property. The proposed sand and gravel and surface mining
will substantially increase the noise, fugitive dirt, and fugitive dust levels in the
neighborhood, including the homes of the Remonstrators.
MM proposes to remove more than 78,000,000 cubic feet of sand and gravel
from the property. MM proposes to substantially relocate Blue Woods Creek, a legal
drain and major tributary of the White River in Hamilton County. MM proposes to
remove the earthen barriers to the further dewatering of the aquifer under Blue Woods
Creek, which will cause an increase in flow of groundwater from the north and west
across the subject property and into the sump and pump system of the huge quarry pit
owned by MM south of the subject property. The Remonstrators have been advised by
Wittman Hydro Planning Associates, Inc., an expert hired by the City of Carmel, that, as
a result of the full development of Mueller South, the groundwater that will be pumped
from MM's large quarry pit south of the subject property, known as the "Indianapolis
North Plant," will be increased by approximately 50 percent, and that such water will be
mixed with surface water and then pumped to holding and sediment ponds located off-
site, and that much of the former groundwater and surface water will eventually find its
way into the drinking water of Carmel.
MM proposes to use regular earth-moving equipment during long shifts of work to
remove the overburden and the sand and gravel beneath. MM states that it will reclaim
the sand and gravel depression in grass atop a shelf of consolidated limestone rock;
however, MM actually proposes to immediately ask this BZA for permission to continue
its open pit blasting, withdrawing approximately 555,000,000 cubic feet of limestone (not
4
u
u
u
including any underground mining), and consuming the entire site within approximately
25 to 50 years, thereby frustrating the stated reclamation plan and deferring reclamation
to sometime between the years 2030 and 2055. The reclamation plan of letting the
large stone pit remain as dry detention, as stated in the Mueller South Surface Mining
Application, appears to be in conflict with the statements by MM that they will allow the
pit to slowly fill with water from the Blue Woods Creek aquifer, so the Remonstrators are
unsure of which reclamation plan to discuss. The BZA should require a definite answer
to this question and then require the DOCS to fully analyze the implications for such
reclamation before making a final decision on the Application. No financial security to
ensure completion of the reclamation plan, whatever it is, has been tendered or even
suggested in form or amount, and the amount could vary depending on the approved
design for reclamation.
Other than a statement that MM that the "restrictions on operations outlined in
the MM Application will be proposed as written commitments in recordable form," MM
has failed to offer any commitments, including a commitment that they will NOT mine
any part of the limestone under the surface of Mueller South, so the Remonstrators are
unable to comment on any MM commitments. Based on its other applications, MM's
intention not to stop with the sand and gravel mining is clear and should be considered
in the BZA's decision on this Application. See the Commitments Proposed by
Remonstrators-Partial Set, below.
5
u
u
The Issues
u
Q
u
u
Issues. The Remonstrators have the following issues to bring before the
BZA for consideration. Following a discussion of each issue, the Remonstrators will
demonstrate why these issues dictate denial of MM's Application.
1. Public Policv and the Intent of the Carmel Common Council: MM is
misinterpretina the S-1/Residence District Zonina Ordinance. MM Should Have Filed
for a Rezonina to M-1/Manufacturina District Before Applvina for Special Use. The
courts will often turn to the intentions of the legislative body when interpreting an
ordinance.
The Remonstrators believe that the reference to mineral extraction found in the
special use section of the S-1/Residence District zoning classification requires
interpretation to define the limits, if any, of such use in the S-1 zoning district. The
designation of special uses in the S-1/Residence District section of the Carmel/Clay
Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning Ordinance") includes a brief reference to "mineral extraction,
borrow pit, top soil removal and their storage." Other than an increased setback to 300
feet from a residential district, there are no performance or development standards
included in the S-1 ordinance.
The corresponding M-1/Manufacturing District sections of the Zoning Ordinance
are quite different, where "Mineral extraction operations including sand, gravel, soil,
aggregate and all related processing operations" are allowed as a Special Use only,
with a 50-acre minimum size. Further, the "[s]torage, utilization or manufacture of
explosive materials (does not include petroleum products)" is permitted as a Special
Use on sites of at least 1 0 acres. The mineral extraction activity is further restricted by
height restrictions, front, side, and rear yard setbacks, maximum lot coverage, parking
and loading requirements, and a variety of performance standards. The performance
standards in the M-1 zoning district specify the amount of noise, vibration, air pollution,
glare, erosion, and water pollution that will be tolerated before a violation of the Zoning
Ordinance will be found.
From the wording of the Zoning Ordinance, without more, it appears that the
intent of the Carmel Common Council was that large aggregate operations, such as
those that are larger than 50 acres, must be subject to the terms of the M-1 zoning
classification, even with Special Use permission. That would infer that in the S-1 zoning
classification, "mineral extraction, borrow pit, top soil removal and their storage" would
be relatively small, would most likely be conducted in conjunction with the development
of a single-family subdivision in conformity with the S-1 regulations, and not be so
intense or long lasting as to require the performance standards and setbacks found in
the M-1 zoning classification. Otherwise, this BZA would need to conclude that the
Carmel Common Council intended to control mining in the M-1 zoning classification but
to leave it unregulated in the S-1 zoning classification. That would be illogical.
The Carmel Common Council has made clear its intent with respect to activities
permitted within the S-1 zoning classification. At Section 5.00 of the Zoning Ordinance,
6
o
when defining the purpose and intent of the S-1 sections, the Carmel Common Council
stated:
The purpose of this district is to provide for the development of innovative
residential environments in keeping with the rural character of this district, by
providing for a development process that allows a high degree of flexibility in the
design of single-family subdivisions. Further, it is the purpose of this district to
provide for a development process that allows for more efficient use of the land
through the introduction of open space and conservation lands within
subdivisions. It is the intention of this district to protect remaining significant
natural features within this district by placing an emphasis on less intensive
urban land uses.
Carmel City Code, Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 5.00.01 (emphasis added).
o
In the above quotation there is no reference to promoting business, employment,
development of natural resources for extraction. Instead, the intent includes no uses
other than single-family residential subdivisions. The other Special Uses that can be
permitted by the BZA in the S-1 zone are cemeteries of 30 acres or more, commercial
greenhouses of 10 acres or more, day nurseries and/or kindergartens of 1 acre or more,
and plant nurseries of 10 acres or more. The cemetery, greenhouse, and plant nursery
uses are extremely benign, low intensity, low traffic, low noise, surface uses, after which
redevelopment may occur as subdivisions. The day nursery and kindergarten are
moderate intensity uses that generate consumer traffic but which are best located near
homes where the children might live. They create minimal noise, no fugitive dust
pollution, no. vibrations, and no trucks, and are closed in the evenings and during
weekends.
What did the Carmel Common Council mean by "mineral extraction, etc."? Is it
possible that the Carmel Common Council intended to allow commercial mining, with all
of its blasting and other nuisances, adjacent to day nurseries and kindergartens? Of
course not. Then why allow mining in a residential district at all? The Remonstrators
believe that the intent was to permit the digging of borrow pits and drainage ponds in
connection with subdivision development. Under current drainage laws, all subdivisions
need borrow pits that can be used for storm water detention and are available for use as
"open space." In creating such borrow pits, a subdivision developer might discover
marketable aggregate in some quantity, as would be the case on the Mueller South site.
If the developer wished to sell the aggregate, he would then obtain a Special Use
approval from this BZA, remove the aggregate along with the soil, and store it on site for
later disposal. There is no reference to processing of raw material into marketable sand
and gravel; there is no reference to regular marketing of such material; and, there is no
reference to the use of explosives, even though all such items are mentioned under the
M-1 zoning classification.
Therefore, the Remonstrators conclude that the intent of the Carmel Common
o Council is that large, commercial, mineral extraction operations should be located, if at
7
u
u
u
all, as Special Uses in the M-1 zoning district, and that only mineral extraction in
conjunction with subdivision development would be permitted with Special Use approval
in the S-1 zoning district. The more specific text of the Zoning Ordinance describing
open spaces and landscaped areas further reinforce the lack of intent on the part of the
Carmel Common Council to permit commercial mining in the middle of subdivisions.
MM has sought to avoid a necessary step in gaining permission to mine Mueller South:
it failed to apply for a rezoning of Mueller South to M-1/Manufacturing District before
applying for Special Use to extract minerals. This can be easily corrected by either (a)
filing for a rezoning with the Carmel/Clay Advisory Plan Commission, or (b) filing for a
variance of use with this BZA. The Application for Special Use is, however, an unlawful
short cut.
2. Public Policv and Threats to the Environment and Surrounding Homes.
Carmel's Duty is to Protect the Public. Apart from the single-family residence sections
of the Zoning Ordinance, the Carmel Common Council has expressed its more general
intent with respect to zoning as follows:
Purpose and Intent
The Zoning Ordinance is an ordinance for the development, through zoning, of
the territory within the jurisdiction of the Carmel City Plan Commission. In
interpreting and applying the provisions of this ordinance, they shall be
held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public
health, safety, comfort, morals, convenience and general welfare. The
Commission has given consideration to the future probable use of land in the
territory affected. by this ordinance, and has prepared a Comprehensive Plan
showing the future development of this area which has served as a guide in the
preparation of this ordinance.
Carmel City Code, Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 1.02 (emphasis added).
Thus, the legislative body has expressed its intent to use the Zoning Ordinances
as a means to further its public policy of promoting the public health, safety, comfort,
morals, convenience and general welfare. There is no reference to paying deference to
business interests, per se; rather, if an application is made under the Zoning Ordinance,
or if there is a violation of the Zoning Ordinance, that threatens the health, safety,
comfort, morals, convenience, or general welfare of the public, then the City has taken
on itself the duty to prevent such harm. Obviously, the DOCS has been selected to
carry out such policy, and may do so through the application process for Special Uses
by requiring more information, clarification, conditions, commitments and other
concessions, and, if unsuccessful in negotiating with the applicant, by urging the denial
of the application to the BZA. Such is the current situation. The DOCS has worked
many months in trying to extract from MM all of the information needed by the DOCS to
make a recommendation to the BZA and has or will be crafting commitments for
consideration by MM and the BZA.
8
u
While the Remonstrators believe that the proper way to regulate on-going
behavior is with a regulatory scheme found in an ordinance or state law, should the BZA
decide to approve MM's Application, it should do so only after it is totally satisfied that
the commitments and conditions required by the DOCS and the BZA will substantially
fulfill the public policy of the City of Carmel to protect its citizens. Therefore, if the
Remonstrators are able to demonstrate a threat to the public health or safety, then the
BZA must deny this Application.
3. Nuisances. The Remonstrators are constantly bombarded with various
acts of MM that constitute private, and sometimes public, nuisances. Each will be
addressed in turn:
u
(a) Noise. The Remonstrators suffer excessive and bothersome noise
from the operations of MM is several ways, including, but not limited to, noise
from the sifting and sorting of sand and gravel at the Carmel Sand and Gravel
Plant, noise from trucks and loaders as they back up ("beep-beep-beep"), noise
from the crushing of rock at the main crusher at the Indianapolis North Plant,
and, of course, from the blasting. Should Mueller South be mined, the following
additional noise elements would be added to the din: the removal of the
overburden will be done by large earthmovers working almost continuously until
competed; the clearing of thousands of trees from the site will be noisy; the
relocation of Blue Woods Creek will mean the movement of thousands of cubic
yards of earth to create a berm along the south side of 106th St., not far from
Kingswood; the mining itself will be done "dry" using large equipment; the raw
material will be loaded onto trucks; and the trucks will transport the raw material
to a processing plant, perhaps the Carmel Sand and Gravel Plant just east of
Kingswpod, for noisy processing. Attached hereto is a comment letter from
EnviRESTORE Engineering, LLP ("Gasper Letter") that contains further support
for the claims of the Remonstrators that the new mine on Mueller South will
increase the noise pollution for them and their neighbors.
u
(b) Blastina. At present, the Remonstrators are confronted with both
the noise and shock waves of open-air blasting on the north face of the limestone
wall at the south edge of Mueller South and with the shock waves of
underground blasting in various locations. The Remonstrators receive no prior
notice of any kind of any blasting, which creates even more uncertainty and
anxiety in addition to the effects of the blasts themselves. As mentioned above,
MM currently has applications on file for the surface mining and underground
mining of Mueller South. Should this Application be approved, there would be
little to stand in the way of approvals for the surface and underground mining,
which would lead inevitably to open-air blasting and underground blasting. To
the Remonstrators' dismay, such blasting would grow closer to their homes and
louder as the north face of the limestone wall moves northward and the
underground blasting moves north and west. The Gasper Letter spends
considerable effort to explain the connection between the pending Application
and the other applications by MM that will inevitably lead to surface mining and
9
u
blasting. If the BZA does not want surface mining and blasting to occur on this
site, then it must not approve the current sand and gravel Application.
u
(c) FUQitive Dust and Dirt. At present, the Remonstrators occasionally
suffer a dusting of lime dust migrating from the Indianapolis North Plant. If and
when the Mueller South mine is developed, there would be fugitive dust from the
earthwork described above. At such time as the surface mining is approved,
there would be considerable lime dust generated by the blasting and hauling of
material from the blast site. Even today, despite representations to the contrary,
many trucks leaving the Indianapolis North Plant are seen loaded with aggregate
but with their dust covers left open, dumping considerable material onto 96th St.
that spreads to adjacent properties. Limestone dust is primarily calcium
carbonate, which can have acute health effects, such as contributions to asthma
and other pulmonary problems. Further calcium carbonate acts as a corrosive
on automobile paint. Those members of the public who suffer from asthma or
other breathing problems should not be subjected to fugitive limestone dust and
neighbors of the mine should not be forced to leave their automobiles inside
garages or wash them daily. The Gasper Letter further spells out the likelihood
of a significant increase in the fugitive dusting of adjoining properties by the
increase in activity at the Mueller South site and the problems that follow such
dusting. The M-1 zoning classification forbids such dust, but no such controls
exist in the S-1 zoning classification. The BZA could impose such controls as
commitments, of course, but none have been proposed by MM at this time and
enforcement would be very difficult. Further, if the BZA elects to impose dust
controls, it should make them applicable to the entire MM operation, not just the
dust traveling from the Mueller South site.
(d) Truck Traffic. The Remonstrators and other neighbors of the
Indianapolis North Plant have already had close encounters of a personal nature
with the large stone trucks entering and leaving the Indianapolis North Plant at
96th Street. Often the truck beds are loaded and left uncovered, spreading lime
dust and aggregate on 96th Street, the nearby automobiles, and the adjacent
businesses. Currently, the truck traffic load on Gray Road is insignificant
compared to the rush of trucks that will be used to harvest the sand and gravel
from Mueller South. Gray Road is fundamentally a residential street, serving as
the main accesses for Sycamore Farms, Wood Creek, and Kingswood
subdivisions to the north and numerous subdivisions, homes, and apartments to
the west of the Indianapolis North Plant, all trying to reach 96th Street. Adding a
host of large stone dump trucks to this traffic will be noisy, dirty, dangerous to
residential drivers, and likely to break down the street surface much sooner than
normal. Gray Road is currently under reconstruction, but the Remonstrators do
not know if the design of the new Gray Road is intended to withstand the
onslaught of stone trucks that it is likely to receive.
u
The Gasper Letter further details the impact of the new mine on increased truck
traffic and its dangers to other citizen drivers. The BZA should require more
10
o
o
o
information in that regard and either approve Gray Road for such use or require
MM to route their trucks internally to 96th Street. As with the dust control
commitment, the requirement that all truck traffic use 96th Street should be made
to apply to all of MM's operations between 96th Street and 106th Street, east of
Gray Road and west of Hazel Dell Parkway.
4. Underaround Water. The Remonstrators are directly tied to the
aquifer underlying their properties by virtue of the fact that Plant 4 of the City Water
Utilities is located in Carmelot Park, adjacent to Kingswood, and the aquifer from which
the four wells in Plant 4 draws its water is located directly under Kingswood (and other
areas). The residents of Kingswood and other nearby subdivisions, drink the water
produced by Plant 4.
Amazingly, and apparently without any permits from the City of Carmel, MM has
elected to pump out virtually all of the water entering its large pit at the Indianapolis
North Plant into a pond (the "Southeast Pond") on the west side of Gray Road, from
which the water flows through conduit connectors to the large pond at the southwest
comer of Gray Road and 106th St. (the "North Pond"). The North Pond then serves to
recharge the aquifer of the wells at Plant 4 and directly provides over half of the drinking
water of Plant 4, and thus to Kingswood. The Remonstrators herewith incorporate by
reference the Assessment of the Effects of Proposed Mine Expansion at the South
Mueller Property on Public Water Supplv Wells near Carmel. Indiana, Wittman Hydro
Planning Associates, Inc., June 30, 2004, attached hereto (the "Wittman Report"); the
letter from Dr. Darrell!. Leap, Ph. D. dated May 27,2002 (the "Dr. Leap letter"); and the
letter from Mundell & Associates, Inc. dated August 4, 2004 (the "Mundell Report").
Taken together, these reports and letters describe a system designed, managed,
and run by MM that causes groundwater from the aquifer serving Plant 4 of the Carmel
water system and Kingswood to be drained into the Indianapolis North Plant pit, mingled
with other groundwater and surface water runoff from around the pit and other potential
contamination, and then pumped westward up and under Gray Road into a sediment
pond. From the sediment pond, a substantial part of the mixed water flows into the
northem pond next to 106th Street and percolates into the aquifer and drawdown zone
of the Plant 4 water wells.
As described in the Mundell letter, once the Mueller South mine is operational,
the water drawn by the Plant 4 wells will consist of over 80 percent recycled mixed
water with very little time of travel from the north pond to the wellfields. This means that
the natural cleansing nature of water flowing through the earth will not have had much
time to occur. The opportunities for contamination are obvious, including all manner of
disposal on the surface of the land of contaminants that, due to the mixing of surface
and underground water, would inevitably find their ways into the water supply of Carmel.
Although various contingency plans can be drawn, the City of Carmel and its citizens
should not be held hostage to the vagaries of surface contamination by third parties and
potential fuel contamination due to the negligence of MM.
11
u
u
u
The Remonstrators believe the better course of action would be to deny this
Application until such time as MM (i) provides containment facilities for all possible leaks
and spillages of contaminants at all of its operations that could impact the Plant 4 wells;
(ii) installs monitoring wells in all appropriate locations and the results of the monitoring
indicate that there is no existing contamination in or approaching the aquifer from the
MM property (including the ponds on the west side of Gray Road); (iii) provides a
contingency plan to handle all environmental emergencies that is satisfactory to the
various agencies of the City of Carmel who have a legitimate interest in such matters;
(iv) provides a reclamation plan that includes how MM will deal with the mine water
following completion of the mine; and, (v) posts financial assurances in form and
amount satisfactory to the DOCS to ensure that if there is a contamination of the Plant 4
wells due to contamination from the MM property, MM will promptly remedy the problem
at its expense without the need for delays and expense. All such requirements should
be at the sole expense of MM. It is the public policy of the City to promote the health of
the public.
This is a direct case of possible interference with the public health and the BZA
has the opportunity to stay its hand until such time as it is assured that the public health
will not suffer from an environmental emergency and that the probability of such
emergency has been reduced to insignificance. If MM will not agree to such reasonable
requests by the BZA, then the Application should be denied as being contrary to public
policy, as expressed in the Remonstrators' tendered Findings of Fact set forth below.
5. Inadequate Minina Reaulation or Commitments. The BZA should take
administrative notice that there is an absence of substantive and direct regulation of
aggregate mining, apart from coal mining, by the federal government, state government,
county government, or local government. In fact, there are no laws, statutes, or
ordinances that will directly affect the size of the Mueller South mine, the manner of
mining activities, the reclamation of the mine site, the noise, dust, or other nuisances
that might emanate therefrom, the handling of groundwater that leaches into the mine,
or blasting.
The BZA, therefore, if it approves the Application, will be thrust into the role of a
legislative body in creating a. regulatory scheme by which the DOCS may monitor,
inspect, regulate, discipline, punish, and close the Mueller South mine, all according to
scientific and reasonable standards, together with other items, such as reimbursement
to the DOCS for direct expenses, and a host of other matters that should be contained
in proper regulatory law.
The Remonstrators submit that the BZA was not charged with that responsibility
and that it is in the best interests of the public to deny the Application until such time as
the BZA is convinced that the DOCS has designed a comprehensive set of
commitments for the regulation of MM at the Mueller South site that will assure the
preservation of the public health and safety and the preservation of the property values
of the Remonstrators. So far, MM has not submitted and the Remonstrators have not
12
Q
Q
u
had the opportunity to review or comment upon any such comprehensive set of
regulatory commitments.
6. Inadeauate Wellfield Protection or Commitments. As described in the
Mundell Letter, all of the existing MM operation between Hazel Dell Parkway and Gray
Road is in the wellfield area for the City of Carmel wells at Plant 4, located just south of
Carmelot Park, including the large new well, number 22, that was just installed at that
location. Mr. Duffy, Director of the Carmel Utilities, has stated that the existing wellfield
protection ordinance of the City of Carmel is out of date and is in the process of being
revised. The BZA should take administrative notice of the lack of adequate controls
with regard to potential water well contamination and, if it approves the Application,
should be willing, in fulfillment of its duty to follow the public policy of protecting citizens'
'health and safety, to create sufficient commitments as to be an adequate substitute for
a good wellfield protection ordinance.
The BZA, therefore, if it approves of the Application, will be thrust again into the
role of a legislative body in creating a regulatory scheme by which the DOCS may
monitor, inspect, regulate, discipline; and punish violators of the wellfield protection
commitments. The Remonstrators submit that the BZA was not charged with that
responsibility and that it is in the best interests of the public to deny the Application until
such time as the BZA is convinced that the DOCS has designed a comprehensive set of
commitments for the regulation of MM at the Mueller South site that will assure that
such wells will be adequately protected from any contamination that would be
foreseeable by MM.
7. lIIeaal Expansion of Existing Nonconfonnina Uses. Because MM has
operated since inception at its current location under the cover of not being required to
obtain any permits for anything, as demonstrated by the lack of permit applications or
approvals in the files of the DOCS, all of the various mining pits, many now filled with
water, located west of Gray Road and south of 106th St., located between Gray Road,
Hazel Dell Parkway, 96th St., and 106th St., located south of 116th St. and west of
Hazel Dell Parkway, and located east of Hazel Dell Parkway and west of the White
River, were and are currently being operated without land use or mining permits.
The Application does not include any Special Use requests with respect to any of
such other properties, even though it is admitted that in order to make use of the
Mueller South land it is necessary for MM (a) to pump groundwater across the
Indianapolis North Plant site into the ponds west of Gray Road, (b) to use the
Indianapolis North Plant site for ingress and egress, and (c) to use the Carmel Sand
and Gravel Plant for processing.
As mentioned above, the legality of the use of the Carmel Sand and Gravel Plant
is currently before this BZA on an appeal of a determination by the DOCS in which the
DOCS stated that all of the property owned by MM was a legal nonconforming use as of
May 17, 2002. If that determination is affirmed by the BZA at a later date, then the
13
Q
Indianapolis North Plant usage and improvements may NOT be altered after that date
without proper zoning and permits.
The Indianapolis North Plant is, however, indirectly involved in the Application
because it must be used for ingress and egress from the Mueller South site, and to
handle the increase in water outflow from the Mueller South site. Each of these new
uses represent changes in uses for the Indianapolis North Plant, as determined as of
May 17, 2002, that must be approved by the BZA either through a variance or a Special
Use application. For instance, providing truck access to the Mueller South site for the
transport of earth and stone was not a use that existed at the Indianapolis North Plant
on May 17, 2002 or any other date. Likewise, the pumping of water from the Mueller
South site across the Indianapolis North Plant site under Gray Road and into the ponds
on the west side of Gray Road were not uses that existed at the Indianapolis North
Plant or the land occupied by the sediment pond and the North Pond on May 17, 2002.
The Remonstrators are not aware of any pending petitions for variance, rezoning, or
special use on the Indianapolis North Plant or the land under the sediment pond and the
North Pond to permit such new uses.
Q
The Remonstrators believe that the proposed uses of the Indianapolis North
Plant and the sediment pond and North Pond are illegal changes in nonconforming uses
and that, therefore, MM is attempting to circumvent the jurisdiction of the DOCS and the
Carmel/Clay Advisory Plan Commission. In addition, the BZA should not be placed in
the untenable position of allowing the Mueller South site to be mined when the BZA
might later determine that the Carmel Sand and Gravel Plant cannot be used to process
the aggregate. Therefore, the BZA should deny this Application because the BZA has
not granted the Applicant the authority to make use of other land that must be. used by
the terms of this Application. After the above issues have been resolved, then MM can
again seek Special Use approval, including, perhaps, the other lands affected.
8. Ownership of Mueller South. As made clear in the Gasper Letter, the
BZA and DOCS are being asked to approve mining by a company that does not own
the land, and may not own the mineral rights. That is improper unless the owner of the
land joins in all of the commitments, representations, financial assurances, and
requirements placed on the approval of the Application by the BZA and agrees to
submit to the jurisdiction of the DOCS for enforcement notwithstanding any terms of its
lease. In other words, all understandings reached with MM must be likewise reached
with E. & H. Mueller Development, LLC, jointly and severally, or they are of no lasting
value. It would be preferable for MM to have purchased the land prior to submitting its
Application, but that is not the case.
Q
The DOCS should receive and examine a certified copy of the lease $0 that the
DOCS could understand when and how the lease might be terminated or amended and
how the rights and duties of the mining operation are divided between MM and E. & H.
Mueller Development, LLC. Further, the BZA has no knowledge of the financial
capability of E. & H. Mueller Development, LLC or its owners, so personal guaranties by
such owners might be prudent to protect the public welfare. In the event of catastrophe,
14
u
(.)
u
the City of Carmel and the Remonstrators should have all the right to recover their
damages from all potentially responsible parties and not be disappointed because of a
term in a lease about which they have no knowledge or control.
The BZA should not approve this Application until the DOCS has thoroughly
analyzed the relationship between MM and E. & H. Mueller Development, LLC,
thoroughly analyzed the financial capabilities of both persons, and made a
recommendation to the BZA concerning how the BZA should design commitments for
both parties that will adequately protect the City of Carmel and its citizens. This
question also has far-reaching implications with respect to any proposed reclamation
plan, the financial security for the City pending reclamation, and the maintenance of the
combined properties after the mine is closed.
9. Reauest to Table Hearina. The Remonstrators believe that it is improper
to consider the sand and gravel mining Application separately from the open pit mining
and have heretofore requested that the hearing on this Application be tabled until a
comprehensive mining ordinance is adopted in Carmel and a wellfield protection
ordinance is adopted in Carmel. At that time, this Application, and the other four
applications concerning Mueller South and Mueller North, should be heard in a
consolidated hearing. If MM refuses to recognize the authority of the BZA to defer its
determination pending such matters, then the BZA should simply deny the Application
as a threat to the public health and safety. MM always has the right to file another
application of the same use after six months and after it has satisfactorily answered the
several questions raised by this Application.
15
Q
Q
Findings of F~ct
Q
u
u
u
Findinas of Fact. There are many significant deficiencies in the materials
presented by MM in their initial Application on December 13, 2002, including, without
limitation, MM's proposed Findings of Fact, which the Remonstrators would restate, as
set forth below:
1. Findinas of Fact number 1 reaardina approvals in the Floodplain: The
Zoning Ordinance includes several conditions to be met by an applicant for special use,
including Section 21.06, which states that this BZA does not have jurisdiction to grant a
Special Use or Special Exception approval in any of the Flood Plain Districts until the
BZA has received written approval from the Indiana Natural Resources Commission for
the proposed Special Use or Special Exception. includina any reports supplementary
thereto. MM has failed to provide a copy of its application to the INRC, so there is no
way to know what the INRC has approved other than the relocation of Blue Woods
Creek.
Secondly, MM has not provided any reports supplemental to the application to
INRC or the INRC approval. Thirdly, the written approval by the INRC must be
addressed to the BZA and should include a statement that the INRC has reviewed the
same application as that before the BZA and found it acceptable, noting any and all
conditions to approval. Finally, none of the supposed permits submitted by MM contain
any reference to approval of sand and gravel mining in the flood plain; rather, all permits
are specific only as to the relocation of Blue Woods Creek. The Department of the
Army permit references "in order to allow for expansion of existing mining operations,"
but such reference is gratuitous in that it does not include the mining operations as a
part of that particular permit. In fact, the IDNR permit has expired by its own terms
unless it was renewed since January 2004. Please refer to the Gasper letter for further
detailed discussion about the interrelationship between the permits issued by the
various agencies involved.
As it now stands, there is no way to tell what was actually approved as it relates
to the sand and gravel mining, there were no supplemental reports submitted to the
BZA that were generated for or during the INRC approval process, and there is no
original letter from INRC addressed to the BZA certifying to the approval. Therefore, the
BZA is without jurisdiction to hear this matter until MM has satisfied the express
provisions of Section 21.06 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Remonstrators would restate this Finding of Fact as follows:
The Special Use in Floodplain District, Ordinance Z-160, Section 21.6 [now
Section 21.06 of the Carmel City Code], as amended, applies to this
Application and the Petition has failed to meet its requirements. Therefore,
the BZA is without jurisdiction to approve this Application.
2. Findinas of Fact number 2 reaardina consistency of commercial sand and
a ravel minina with the Character and Permitted land Use of the zonina district and
Carmel/Clay Comprehensive Plan. The 8-1 zoning classification includes only low-
16
o
o
o
density single-family uses as its primary land uses; all other uses must seek approval
through a public hearing. It is obvious that a 95-acre commercial sand and gravel mine
is very unlike the hundreds of acres of expensive single-family, multi-family, and retail
developments that now surround the MM complex. The commercial mining therefore is
not "consistent" with such uses and therefore fails this test.
Secondly, MM attempts to "bootstrap" into favor with the BZA by suggesting that
their mine will be the same as "low Intensity Regional and Community Employment."
The Remonstrators, however, interpret such language to mean single-story and
perhaps two-story office, church, civic, government, and similar uses, not a sand and
gravel mining operation conducted with large earthmoving machinery 16 hours per day,
six days or more per week for years.
MM suggests that when they are done the open space remaining will conform to
the requirements of the S-1/Residence District. Such a suggestion is deceptive
because (i) MM knows that it does not intend to create any open space other than a
215-foot deep pit; (ii) MM knows that it will take 25 to 50 years to finish mining in that pit,
whereas open space requirements are supposed to be met from the' beginning of the
development, not 50 years later; and (iii) MM knows that a 215-foot deep pit is NOT
open space. The Zoning Ordinance defines "designed open space" as follows:
land areas, free of Buildings, carefully designed and specialized in
function, which act as neighborhood focal points, and allow for passive or
active recreation Use. Designed Open Space is not incidental, residual
land between Buildings, but land areas which are integrated into an overall
site or neighborhood design, are accessible visually as well as physically,
and are functional for us by people for gathering or play.
Carmel City Code, Chapter 10, Article 1, Section 3.07.
In addition, all types of "open space" are described in the Subdivision Control
Ordinance, Carmel City Code, Chapter 10, Article 2, including designed open space,
natural open space, agricultural open space, and conservancy lots. None of these
descriptions include anything close a commercial mining or its reclaimed lake.
Therefore, the BZA should find that MM has failed to satisfy the requirements of
this Finding of Fact.
The Remonstrators would restate this Finding of Fact as follows:
The Special Use is not consistent with the Character and Permitted land
Use of the zoning district [S-1/Residence District] and Carmel/Clay
Comprehensive Plan because it is neither residential nor low intensity
commercial; rather, it is incompatible with residential housing, generates
considerable traffic and noise, does not conform to applicable
development standards, and is of a high-intensity industrial nature.
17
u
u
u
3. Findings of Fact number 3 regarding phvsical suitability for the land in
auestion. The Remonstrators acknowledge that the land is a wooded tract containing
Blue Woods Creek, considerable wooded cover, and some tillable areas. The
Remonstrators also recognize that under this green exterior lies a layer of sand and
gravel overlaying a layer of relatively consolidated limestone. While MM would suggest
that every piece of land with such characteristics should be made available to MM for
mining at their request, the BZA should recognize that there are thousands of aCres of
such land in Indiana, many in Hamilton County, and that there is no shortage of such
land in the immediate area, north and south along the banks of the White River, much of
which is owned or controlled by MM and its competitors. In fact, the Mueller South land
is not even the best available land for this purpose in that it consists of thin outwash, not
the thick outwash that contains more gravel. See Figure 7 and page 12 of the Wittman
Report. The Remonstrators have been advised by their experts that the profit margin
for MM at this location is between 20 percent and 50 percent, depending on the
depreciation of fixed and movable assets. Therefore, the BZA should not be concerned
with protecting the profitability of MM in this case. There are other considerations to
"physically suitable" as well. For instance, MM will need to cut and strip thousands of
trees from the Mueller South site, then scrape and pile up approximately 22,000,000
cubic feet of soil somewhere on the site or truck if off. Further, MM wants to relocate
Blue Woods Creek because the site is not as profitable with Blue Woods Creek in its
present location. Thus, the site is not nearly as suitable for the intended gravel pit use
as MM would suggest.
The Remonstrators would restate this Finding of Fact as follows:
The Special Use is not physically suitable for the land in question because
the site is presently heavily wooded and bisected by a substantial
watercourse. The site is better suited for low-density single-family
residential use, which is in strict accord with the current S-1/Residence
District zoning.
4. Findina of Fact number 4 reaardina the effects on adiacent land or
propertv values. MM's response to this Finding is nonresponsive because it does not
deal with injuries or damages to the Remonstrators and similarly situated persons in
Carmel. This is probably the most glaring omission and misrepresentation in the
Findings of Fact tendered by MM. The Remonstrators have retained water and mining
experts whose written opinions, in summary form, are attached hereto and incorporated
herein as the Mundell Letter, the Gasper Letter, and the Dr. Leads Letter. Their harsh
criticism of the proposed sand and gravel mining reflects just how badly the proposed
expansion of the mine onto the Mueller South property will impact the adjacent land and
property values and the public property of the City of Carmel.
(a) First, the Remonstrators believe they will be directly and negatively
affected by the long hours of operation of large earthmoving equipment in the
relocating of Blue Woods Creek, the construction of the berm, the cutting and
18
Q
removal of thousands of trees, the stripping of six feet or more of topsoil, and the
mining of more than 78,000,000 cubic feet of sand and gravel. Such operations
will cause noise and dust for years.
(b) The material removed will need to be removed by heavy trucks,
using either 106th Street, which is not designed for such concentrated use, or
Gray Road, which is being rebuilt because it has already begun to deteriorate
due to the traffic entering from the MM site on the east side of Gray Road or from
96th Street. This increased traffic will decrease the property values in the area
and will increase the normal hazards of driving automobiles on such roads. If
MM directs its increased truck traffic onto 96th Street, it will only increase the
truck traffic problems now experienced by the thousands of commuters who are
forced to tolerate these ponderous dusty vehicles every day, leading inevitably to
the reconstruction of 96th Street and perhaps parts of Keystone Ave. and Hazel
Dell Parkway, all at the direct expense of the City of Carmel. There are no offers
by MM to pay extra to replace the direct expenses of the City of Carmel resulting
from their road damage.
Q
(c) MM proposes to process the sand and gravel at the existing Carmel
Sand and Gravel Plant located due east of Kingswood. This Plant is the source
of considerable noise at all hours of the day and night and is one of the main
reasons for the continued objections of the Remonstrators to enlargement of the
MM operations. The Plant is also the subject of a legal challenge to its continued
operation in Docket No. 04070020 A before this BZA, and if this BZA should
determine that the Plant is illegal, then MM would have no place nearby to
process the raw sand and gravel for processing, resulting in even more truck
traffic. So long as this Plant is in operation, the property values in Kingswood
and Wood Creek will remain negatively affected.
(d) The Remonstrators are negatively affected by the possibility, and
perhaps probability, of sinkholes and other subsidence occurring in their
subdivisions. One such sinkhole has already occurred behind two homes on the
west side of Oldfield Drive in Wood Creek. Such sinkholes and other subsidence
may, and is more likely to, occur, when there is substantial dewatering of a near-
surface sand and gravel aquifer and periodic ground vibrations such as occur
from blasting. Those circumstances exist for the Remonstrators inasmuch as
there is constant dewatering of the aquifer under their homes and constant
blasting by MM in its existing stone pit immediately south of the Mueller South
site. The vibrations cause the sand and gravel under the thin layer of clay till at
the surface to settle into the numerous cracks and voids in the limestone layer
underneath, thus withdrawing the vertical support for the clay and the homes
situated thereon. The threat of subsidence in Carmel should not be tolerated by
this BZA nor should individuals be exposed to its devastating effects.
Q
(e) The City of Carmel and all of its citizens will also be negatively
affected by the proposed Mueller South sand and gravel mining because of the
19
u
dewatering. As set forth in the Wittman Report, page 36, opening of the Mueller
South property for mining will increase the amount of water pouring out of the
aquifer into the mine by 50 percent, to approximately 9,600,000 gallons per day.
Wittman Report, pages 17 and 36. This increase will decrease the capacity of
the aquifer by approximately 15 percent during normal conditions, and a great
deal more under drought conditions, assuming no additional drawdown
requirements by the City of Carmel and no additional mining by MM. During
mining, say the next 25 to 50 years, the primary source for groundwater at Plant
4 of the Carmel Utilities will be groundwater and surface water that is pumped out
of the MM stone pit to the sediment pond on the west side of Gray Road.
Wittman Report, page 36. According to the Wittman Report, "[a]s Carmel's role
as a regional drinking water supplier grows, it is critical that the city protects the
aquifers from any deterioration in yield." Wittman Report, pages 1-2. There is
Indiana case law that prevents the City of Carmel and all of the Remonstrators
from recoverina damaaes from MM for the fact that 9,600,000 gallons per day of
the City's aquifer is draining into the stone pit, so the only time and the only way
to stop the loss of yield from occurring is to deny this Application for special use.
u
(f) Obviously, if the primary source of groundwater for Plant 4 of the
Carmel Utilities system is the water pumped up from the stone pit to the sediment
ponds, then such groundwater is exposed to infinitely more risk of contamination
than if it were left in the aquifer. Such contamination is nearby in the stone pit
due to the storage of large amounts of fuel and the necessary refueling
operations that occur there daily. See, Spill Prevention. Control. and
Countermeasure Plan, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., certified April 1, 2003, at
Appendix E, showing 15 locations with no spill containment facilities. Such
contamination can also occur despite the best of intentions due to the fact that
the source of the water is contained in two large sediment ponds and comes from
surface water drainage as well as groundwater leakage. The City of Carmel has
a direct and critical interest in securing such aquifer recharging sources from
contamination at the present time; any increase in the Mueller South
groundwater discharge due to mining will only make it more important for the City
of Carmel to assume control over such groundwater recharge sources.
The Remonstrators would restate this Finding of Fact as follows:
u
The Special Use will injuriously and adversely affect the adjacent land or
property values because of (a) increased noise for several years; (b)
increased dust for several years; (c) increased heavy truck traffic for
several years; (d) increased costs of replacing roads that otherwise would
have withstood the designed traffic loads for much longer periods; (d)
increased use of the Carmel Sand and Gravel Plant, with its considerable
noise, even though it may be an illegal nonconforming use; (e) increased
risk of subsidence and the catastrophic losses of value in the affected
homes and all those that might be affected; (e) decreased yield for the
Carmel Utilities water wells and the need to build more as a result thereof;
20
o
o
o
and (f) significantly increased risk of contamination of the aquifer serving
the Carmel Utilities water wells.
5. FindinQs of Fact number 5 reaarding vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow.
availability of water. sewaqe. or storm drainaae facilities. and police and fire protection.
MM's response to this finding of fact is again only partially responsive.
(a) It is clear from the above discussion of truck traffic that it will be
significantly increased inasmuch as the current stone operations at the
Indianapolis North Plant located in the stone pit will continue. In fact, experts
have predicted that the stone business will see a large increase in volume in the
next five years. Therefore, truck traffic will not decrease; rather, it could double
with the addition of the Mueller South site to the traffic. MM admits that it will
cause truckers to use the Gray Road access point to and from the Mueller South
site. That means that the truck traffic will either turn north or south at Gray Road,
then either use 106th St. or Hazel Dell Parkway to drive to the Carmel Sand and
Gravel Plant, if they are permitted to use it. Most likely, the traffic will enter Gray
Road, turn north on Gray, go around the new "roundabout" at 106th St., turn east
on 106th St., cross both northbound and southbound traffic (where there is no
automatic signal) to turn north on Hazel Dell Parkway, and then cross
southbound traffic on Hazel Dell Parkway to enter the Carmel Sand and Gravel
Plant. Purchasers of the sand and gravel will then enter and exit the Carmel
Sand and Gravel Plant on Hazel Dell Parkway without benefit of any automatic
signal. At the rate of one truck every six minutes or so from each location, this
will be quite a mess at times of moderate to high traffic on Hazel Dell Parkway.
(b) All experts, including those hired by the City, estimate that there will
be a negative effect on the aquifer serving Plant 4 of Carmel Utilities of millions of
gallons of groundwater per day. At page 36 of the Wittman Report, it is
estimated that currently 4,800,000 gallons per day are being pumped out of the
main pit and into the ponds west of Gray Road BEFORE development of the
Mueller South mine; the addition of the Mueller South mine will cause the
groundwater loss to increase by 1,600,000 gallons per day. This is
unacceptable, and MM's omission of a finding on this important aspect of the
prescribed findings of fact further indicates their knowledge that they are severely
and negatively impacting the groundwater supply to the drinking water supply of
the citizens of Carmel.
(c) If the groundwater supply is contaminated, then such contamination
will force Plant 4 off-line and increase the need for other wells to be purchased
and installed by the Carmel City Utilities at great cost. In the meantime, the
citizens of Carmel might be forced to ration water, the City might be forced to
purchase water from the Indianapolis Water Company, or worse. There can be
no justification for allowing a foreign corporation, or any other person or entity, to
create such financial risks for the citizens of Carmel, without security,
21
u
u
u
compensation, or indemnification; and, there is no public policy to allow anyone
knowingly to place the health of the citizens of Carmel at any risk.
The Remonstrators would restate this Finding of Fact as follows:
The Special Use will adversely affect vehicular traffic flow, and will
adversely affect the adequate availability of water because of (a) increased
heavy truck traffic for several years; (b) increased costs of replacing roads
that otherwise would have withstood the designed traffic loads for much
longer periods; (c) decreased yield for the Carmel Utilities water wells and
the future need to build more as a result thereof; and (d) significantly
increased risk of contamination of the aquifer serving the Carmel Utilities
water wells. .
6. Findinos of Fact number 6 incorporates the statutory requirements for the
arantinQ of a Special Use as found in Section 21.06 of the Zonina Ordinance. In
Appendix 0 of its Application, MM attempts to justify the addition of 65 acres of mine
according to those criteria. The Remonstrators offer the following responses to MM's
assertions (the paragraph numbering is the same as in the Zoning Ordinance):
1. Topographv. MM states the "[u]ltimately, the subject property will
be reclaimed as an open area with moderately sloping sides (3:1 )." This is
deceptive in that MM has already filed an application for Special Use on this
same site to permit surface mining, which would destroy the limestone shelf
under the sand and gravel, and underground mining under that limestone shelf.
So, the ending topography of this site actually will be the bottom of an extension
of the existing stone pit, some 215 feet below the surface.
2. Zoning on the Site. MM asserts that mineral extraction is
"established" as a "permitted Special Use in this district." However, mineral
extraction is only allowed as a use upon BZA approval. As discussed above, the
Remonstrators believe that "mineral extraction" in the S-1 zoning classification
refers only to miscellaneous borrow pits in subdivisions, and that 65-acre
commercial quarries are supposed to be located in M-1 zones.
3. SurroundinQ zoninQ and land use. MM omits the fact that within
one-quarter mile of the north line of the Mueller South site is the Kingswood
subdivision.
4. Streets. curbs and autters. and sidewalks. As discussed above,
there will be a tremendous negative effect on the streets by the increase of heavy
stone truck traffic.
7. General vehicular and pedestrian traffic. MM asserts that "[d]uring
mining operations, no vehicular traffic will be generated on the subject property."
Apparently, the addition of hundreds of truck trips per day to and from the site is
22
'-.)
not "vehicular traffic" so far as MM is concerned. The Remonstrators respectfully
disagree.
17. Landscaoina and tree masses. As noted, the destruction of
thousands of trees will be required for the mining to commence. It will be
impossible for MM to replace even a meaningful fraction of that number of
mature trees on that sliver of the Mueller South site remaining covered with soil
when the mine is in operation and after completion. The reclamation plan does
not call for any additional trees, even in the bottom of the new pit where soil
could be returned and new trees could be planted. Clearly, therefore, the woods
will be lost forever.
'-.)
21. On-site and off-site. surface and subsurface storm and water
drainaQe. MM asserts that no water will leave the premises containing sediment;
however, it is a known fact that MM collects all such water and pumps it to a
sediment pond that is west of Gray Rd., not a part of Mueller South. The BZA
has no control over this sediment pond, so any interaction between it and the
water from the Mueller South site is arguably not within the jurisdiction of the BZA
or any department of the City of Carmel. In fact, the volume of water to be
pumped from the Mueller South site to the sediment pond, ultimately to find its
way to the drinking water of the citizens of Carmel or into the legal drain of Blue
Woods Creek, is substantial, and will contain considerable sediment. MM has
failed to provide any proof of the "applicable legal requirements with respect to
drainage" to which it might be subject, has failed to provide any proof that it has
obtained any permits for such off-site drainage, and failed to provide any proof
that the addition of the Mueller South mine to such drainage will conform to any
such permits. The Remonstrators are deeply concerned that such activities are
being carried on without appropriate permits that take into consideration the
interaction between the stone pit, the sediment ponds, the aquifer involved, Blue
Woods Creek, and the Mueller South site. So far, MM has fallen far short of full
disclosure or full compliance with "applicable legal requirements."
'-.)
23
u
u
~
.-- ~-~.~- ~.~ -~ ~
Special Use Decisions
--~ ~.- - - ---- - -.- - - - ~
- - - - --~ ~ - - ~ ---
o
o
o
Special Use Decisions. The Remonstrators agree with MM that the BZA is
required to make its decision on this matter based on the five general criteria set forth in
Section 21.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Remonstrators assert, however, that MM
has failed to meet these criteria, and, therefore, the Remonstrators assert that the
Special Use Application must be denied. Each of the five criteria will be addressed in
turn:
1. The particular physical suitability of the premises in question for the
proposed Special Use. The Remonstrators believe that the BZA should not focus on
whether or not there is sand and gravel beneath the Mueller South site, for there is sand
and gravel under virtually all of the land near the White River, including under
Kingswood and other subdivisions in the area. Further, the question is not whether the
sand and gravel can be mined profitably, for there are hundreds of locations where it
may be mined profitably. Rather, the question is much broader and includes the final
disposition of the property after full development. With any other form of development,
the plans submitted for review and approval by the BZA would give the BZA a precise
idea of the design, materials, bulk, traffic flow, landscaping, and use of the property.
Here, MM does not propose just to use the property; rather, it proposes to use it up, to
consume it. Even were MM to stop mining at the limestone shelf, there will be no dirt
left when the mining is done, just a stone pit 30 feet deep. Even the submitted
reclamation plan does not suggest that the land would be returned to any kind of
beneficial or attractive use; the reclamation plan for the open pit surface mining
continued in the surface mining Application for Mueller South would leave no land
behind and the floor of the pit would be 215 below the surface. In addition, the physical
suitability must include the fact that underground water will flow across the Mueller
South site at the rate of several million gallons per day, helping to dewater a critical
aquifer. Further, such dewatering means that the disturbing of this site will adversely
affect storm water management in the area by increasing the flow into the sediment
ponds by 1,600,000 gallons per day, of which perhaps 1,000,000 gallons per day will be
added to Blue Woods Creek. Wittman Report. Will the sediment ponds and the stone
pit someday cause an environmental emergency, or disaster, due to contamination?
Will the additional water pumped by MM to the ponds contribute to flooding of Gray
Road, the Mueller South site, and the land on the east side of Hazel Dell Parkway?
These questions are unanswered, but 1,600,000 gallons of additional water per day
must be accounted for and the risks to the aquifer must be weighed in the BZA's
decision. Does this site have a "particular" physical suitability for the proposed use,
taking into account the many risks and unintended results? NO.
2. The economic factors related to the proposed Special Use. such as
cost/benefit to the community and its anticipated effect on surroundinq property values.
MM devotes much of its response to this question to its own profitability, but does not
mention nor proYide any facts or estimates of the costs to the City, its citizens, or the
Remonstrators. The facts are that a person interested in purchasing sand, gravel, and
stone products in the Carmel area has several choices of vendor, all of which are priced
substantially the same. In fact, MM is presently shipping sand and gravel down from its
24
u
Noblesville mine to be processed at the Carmel Sand and Gravel Plant. MM would not
do so if it is not profitable. But, the profits of MM are not relevant to this question.
(a) The crux of this question is whether or not the benefits to the
community of granting the Special Use outweigh the several costs to the
community caused by the Special Use. As stated above, the costs to the City of
Carmel include the following: (i) increased road maintenance caused by a large
increase in the volume of heavy stone trucks; (ii) possible costs of adding
automatic traffic signals at 106th and Hazel Dell Parkway and at the Carmel
Sand and Gravel Plant entrance; (iii) increased costs of adding more water wells
to the Carmel Utilities system by reason of the loss of flow from Plant 4; (iv)
increased risks of contamination at the Plant 4 wells, the increased costs of on-
site monitoring due to the recharging of the aquifer from the sediment ponds (see
the Wittman Report), and possible extreme costs of purchasing water from other
sources due to the loss of use of Plant 4 and resulting litigation; (v) increased
costs of other monitoring wells, as recommended in the Wittman Report; (vi)
increased costs of regulating the activities at Mueller South and the various
experts and reports that will be periodically needed to assure compliance; and,
(vii) the increased risk that subsidence will occur and that the City of Carmel will
be a co-defendant based on the claim of dewatering in conjunction with blasting
either at the Mueller South site (if the open pit Special Use Application is
ultimately approved) or at the Indianapolis North Plant.
u
The benefits to the City of Carmel include the following: (a) possible stability in
aggregate prices (assuming that all other sources of sand, gravel, and stone in
the area were to be exhausted), provided that the City of Carmel was actually a
purchaser of such products; (b) taxes, whatever they may be, that are increased
by reason of Mueller South. Property taxes should remain the same unless the
Mueller South land is reassessed to reflect the value of the mineral reserves, but
at this time there is no way to accurately estimate the increase or decrease in
property taxes resulting from any opening of a Mueller South mine. Therefore,
on balance, it would appear that in order for MM to generate more profit, the
community must shoulder more immediate costs and take risks that no
reasonable community would consider, much less assume.
u
(b) Finally, MM has failed to discuss or provide any evidence to
support its claim that there will be no negative effect on the surrounding property
values. Perhaps MM is considering the "surrounding property" to be only land
owned or leased by MM. That would be an unreasonably narrow reading of the
ordinance, for the BZA has no reason to care about the effect of a Special Use
on the petitioner's own surrounding property. Rather, the BZA should be
concerned about the effects on neighbors' properties. Here, the neighbors are
the City of Carmel, including Carmelot Park and Plant 4 of the Carmel Utilities;
the residents of Wood Creek, Sycamore Farms, and Kingswood subdivisions,
including the Remonstrators; and various single-family residential, multi-family
25
u
u
u
residential, and retail developments along the west side of Gray Road and at
96th Street.
Addressed above are the many reasons why the City of Carmel is negatively
affected by the opening of the Mueller South mine, including dewatering of the
Plant 4 wells, possible contamination, and possible legal liability for subsidence.
Such events would render Plant 4 of reduced or negligible value, costing the City
millions of dollars to replace. The value of Carmelot Park is not important in
financial terms, but the negative impact of drastically increased noise, dust, and
heavy stone truck traffic is bound to have a negative effect on the quality of the
park experience for those who choose to go there if the Mueller South mine is
opened.
Finally, the Remonstrators are concerned that if the Mueller South mine is ever
opened it will not only generate all of the problems discussed above but will also
inevitably lead to the BZA's approval of open pit blasting because MM will have
effectively eliminated all other beneficial uses of the Mueller South land. See the
Gasper Letter. Such an event would be catastrophic for the Remonstrators due
to the proximity of such blasting to their homes, with its attendant shock waves
and vibrations, and the increased risk of subsidence. See the Mundell Letter and
the Gasper Letter. The values of the entire neighborhood would necessarily drop
as word of the ever-closer blasting circulated among the real estate community.
The values of the homes would be drastically reduced if any more events of
subsidence occurred in the neighborhood, especially if the result were to be one
or more condemned homes. Given that there are no federal, state, county, or
local laws controlling the behavior of MM with respect to dewatering and blasting,
and that there are no remedies for damages due to blasting and subsidence
other than civil lawsuits by individuals against MM, it is obvious that the costs to
the community are tremendously high and the benefit is illusory.
Therefore, does the benefit to Carmel and its citizens outweigh the costs of
permitting the mining of the Mueller South site? NO.
3. The social/neiahborhood factors related to the proposed Special Use.
such as compatibilitv with existina uses and those permitted under current zonina in the
vicinity of the premises under consideration and how the proposed Special Use will
affect neiahborhood intearity. MM's response to this question is totally without merit
because it dwells on the goals of the aggregate business owners. The profitability of
MM or whether or not it can mine the sand and gravel inexpensively is irrelevant.
Rather, this question is directed at the situation where a proposed use is of a
nature that it might degrade the quality of the neighbors' properties and life-styles by
being incompatible with other uses in the immediate area, or might be so different from
other uses permitted under the current zoning, such as single-family residential homes,
that it damages the integrity of the neighborhood. Clearly, in this neighborhood there
are four major and very different types of use: single-family residential, public (parks
26
u
u
u
and water utility), farming, and mining (defined as an industrial use in the M-
1/Manufacturing District of the Zoning Ordinance). In terms of total land areas devoted
to each use, the public use is the least and the other three uses would be larger or
smaller depending on the definition of "neighborhood."
If, on the other hand, "neighborhood" is defined narrowly, such that Kingswood,
Wood Creek, and Sycamore Farms are defined as one neighborhood, and all of the MM
properties are defined as another neighborhood, then the question might be whether or
not an approval of the Mueller South mine would have a negative effect on any
neighborhood, including the Kingswood, Sycamore Farms, and Wood Creek
neighborhood. After all, why should one landowner be allowed to create a material
adverse effect on an entire neighborhood, just because it is so large as to become its
own neighborhood?
The Remonstrators believe, however, that due to the sizes of land and distances
involved, the correct definition of "neighborhood" for purposes of this question includes
all of the land and their owners that could be directly impacted by any opening of a mine
at Mueller South. Such neighborhood would be bounded by 116th St. on the north,
White River on the east, approximately 1000 feet by parallel lines and south of 96th St.,
and approximately 1000 feet by parallel lines and west of Gray Rd. Beyond these
points, blasting is not likely to be felt or dangerous, the dewatering of the aquifer would
be of little significance for purposes of subsidence, the noise would not be discernible,
the dust would not migrate, and the truck traffic would have dispersed.
Having defined the neighborhood, the Remonstrators suggest that the question is
not just whether mining would be divisive of the neighborhood, but also whether any
other use for the same land would be noticeably better. For instance, the Mueller South
site is presently zoned for low-density single-family residential use, although it is
presently farmland. A single-family residential use or farmland use would be less
destructive of the neighborhood than mining. If the other available Special Uses under
the S-1/Residence District are examined, then the question includes whether or not a
Cemetery, Commercial Greenhouse, Day Nursery, Kindergarten, or Plant Nursery
would be more or less destructive of the neighborhood than mining. The Remonstrators
would suggest that each of the alternative uses permitted in the S-1 zone is less
destructive of the neighborhood because they would not project blasting noise and
vibration, would not create fugitive dust and mining noise, would not generate large
numbers of heavy stone trucks, and would not create the increased risk of subsidence
to the other neighbors. Therefore, does the proposed Special Use of mining on the
Mueller South property have little or no negative impact on the neighborhood integrity?
NO.
4. The adeQuacv and availability of water. sewaae. and storm drainage
facilities and police and fire protection. As stated by MM, the opening of another
gravel mine at this location does not require the extension of public utilities and will not
create gatherings of people that would require additional police control or fire protection.
27
Q
u
u
5. The effects of the proposed Special Use on vehicular and pedestrian
traffic in and around the premises upon which the Special Use is proposed. As stated
above, because MM plans to use dry excavation methods, there will be large
earthmoving equipment on and around the site for many years and all material will be
placed in large stone trucks for transport to the nearest processing facility. This will
place a tremendous burden on the road system, including traffic and repairs, that was
not previously experienced with prior sand and gravel mining in the area. The City of
Carmel or the Hamilton County Highway Department has the information necessary to
determine the designed load limits of the various streets and highways that will be
impacted by the transport of such equipment and the repeated trips by the heavy stone
trucks. Such departments can also predict the pace of deterioration of such road
systems and the cost to repair them. Unless MM is prepared to pay its fair share for
damaging such streets and road systems, the BZA should decline this Special Use
Application. Therefore, does the Special Use Application have little or no negative
impact on the street and road systems of the City of Carmel? NO.
28
u
u
Commitments Tendered by Remonstra~ors
Partial Set
u
u
u
u
Commitments Tendered by Remonstrators-Partial Set. Based on the above
analysis and argument, and the exhibits attached hereto or incorporated herein, and
understanding that the DOCS will be submitting, or has by the hearing date submitted,
proposed commitments that, if approved by MM and adopted by the BZA, would allow
the DOCS to support the Application, the Remonstrators herewith submit their own
commitments in addition to those that are likely to be submitted by others. Such
submission shall not be deemed an agreement or consent to the approval of the
Application or agreement or consent to any other commitments, and the Remonstrators
reserve their rights to appeal any decision of the BZA in this matter.
1. Performance Standards. The mining at the site will be done in
accordance with the performance standards set forth in the Carmel City Code, Chapter
20B: M-1/Manufacturing District. .
2. Blastina Forbidden. No blasting shall occur at the site.
3. Traffic Routina. No truck traffic shall enter or leave the site via 106th
Street. All dump trucks and heavy equipment shall enter and exit the site' by means of
interior roadways traversing the land owned by the Applicant/operator and shall enter
the public road system only at 96th Street.
4. Earlv Sound Protection. A protective berm shall be the first
development of the site, which berm shall be designed and installed so as to eliminate
noise and view from the further development and mining of the site along 106th Street.
5. Transportation to Processor. All raw aggregate material generated at
the site shall be transported for processing by means other than by trucks. All noise .
associated with such transportation shall be minimized. No processing, operations, or
sales of aggregate shall occur at the site.
6. Plans. Prior to commencement of work on the site, the Applicant/operator
shall submit and the DOCS shall have approved a grading plan, development plan,
landscaping plan, mining plan, reclamation plan, soil conservation and erosion control
plan, spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan, wellfield protection plan,
groundwater and surface water monitoring plan, drainage plan, operations plan
(including, without limitation, hours of operation, types of equipment, noise, lights,
fugitive dust, truck routes, and other matters deemed important by the DOCS), and such
other plans as shall be reasonably required by the DOCS to ensure protection of the
public health, safety, comfort, morals, convenience and general welfare (collectively, the
"Plans").
7. Plan Review. The DOCS will provide notice to all Remonstrators and their
counsel of the filing of such Plans and a reasonable opportunity, being not fewer than
15 nor more than 30 days, within which to submit written comments to the DOCS for its
consideration. The DOCS will provide the Applicant/operator and the Remonstrators
with notice of approval of any such Plans and shall indicate on such Plans that they are
29
u
u
u
the Plans upon which the Applicant/operator may rely for its operations. Following such
approval, the Applicant/operator shall be bound by such Plans, subject to amendment in
the same manner as original approval.
8. Annual Report. Following approval of the Plans described
hereinabove, the Applicant/operator shall be bound by the terms thereof and shall
submit on or before each March 1 a written report indicating the progress that has been
made in the development and mining of the site. Such report shall include each
instance in which the Applicant/operator may have deviated from the Plans, whether or
not it believes such deviation was material, and whether or not such deviation was
reported to the DOCS. The DOCS shall send written notice to the Remonstrators of the
receipt of the report described herein and make such report available for inspection and
copying by all interested parties. .
9. Penaltv for Violation of Plans. In the event the DOCS determines that
a deviation from the approved Plans has occurred, was not permitted, and is material,
the DOCS shall have the discretion to cite the Applicant/operator for a violation of a
zoning ordinance for the failure to report such deviation and to impose the maximum
fine allowable under the Carmel City Code for ordinance violations. Each day the
ApplicanUoperator fails to report the deviation from the Plans shall be deemed to be a
separate violation.
10. Incorporation of Other Approvals. Prior to commencement of any work on
the site, the ApplicanUoperator shall provide original approvals and permits from every
other governmental agency having jurisdiction over the site and/or the activities of the
ApplicanUoperator, including all submittals to such governmental agencies, and shall
include all specifications and restrictions contained in such submittals, approvals, and
permits within the Plans submitted to the DOCS for approval.
11. Reclamation Plan. In recognition of the interrelation of the various mines
operated by the Applicant/operator in the past, being operated presently, and to be
operated in the future, the reclamation plan shall include all of the land mined or
proposed to be mined by the ApplicanUoperator within the land bounded by 106th Street
on the north, Hazel Dell Parkway on the east, 96th Street on the south, and Gray Road
on the west, and shall require the consolidation of the fee simple title to all such land
into one ownership, except the small portion of such property retained by E. & H.
Mueller Development, LLC at the southwest comer of Hazel Dell Parkway and 106th
Street, prior to the completion of mining at the site or abandonment of the mine,
whichever shall first occur.
12. Financial Security. Prior to commencement of any work on the site, and
at all times thereafter, the Applicant/operator shall submit and keep in full force and
effect letters of credit, bonds, or cash ("Financial Security") payable to the City of
Carmel in an amount equal to the cost, from time to time, of reclamation of the mining
sites described in the preceding commitment in accordance with the reclamation part of
the Plans. The form and amount of the Financial Security shall be subject to the
30
u
u
u
discretion of the DOCS, shall be subject to amendment from time to time, and shall be
issued by a financial institution or insurance company licensed to do business in the
State of Indiana. The issuer of the Financial Security shall have a AAA rating and net
assets of not less than one billion dollars. The DOCS shall have the right to change the
issuer of the Financial Security, change the form of Financial Security, and increase the
amount of the Financial Security as the DOCS shall deem necessary to protect the City
of Carmel and assure the completion of the reclamation plan as it may exist from time to
time.
13. Payments From Financial Security. The City of Carmel shall have the
unrestricted right to draw down all or any part of the financial security without cause,
and the rights of the City of Carmel shall not be subject to claims by the
ApplicanUoperator or any creditors or bankruptcy trustee of the ApplicanUoperator. The
City of Carmel shall use all funds so received for the purpose of reclaiming the site in
the event of default by the ApplicanUoperator and for the payment of any mitigation
costs incurred by the City of Carmel resulting from the operation of the mine on the site
or caused by the acts, omissions, or negligence by the ApplicanUoperator, including,
without limitation, mitigation costs incurred off-site. The terms of the reclamation plan
shall include a provision allowing the City of Carmel its reasonable attorneys' fees and
other expenses of litigation, mediation, or arbitration in the event of litigation regarding
its rights to payment under the financial security, including, without limitation, defenses
raised by the ApplicanUoperator.
14. Assianment and Continuina Liability. The ApplicanUoperator shall have
the right to sell or transfer the mine, the mineral rights owned by the Applicant/operator,
and/or its leasehold rights in the site; provided, however, that the Applicant/operator
shall not be relieved of any responsibility under these commitments in the event of
default by the transferee, and the transferee of the Applicant/operator's interest in the
site shall be subject to all of these commitments, including the rights of the City of
Carmel. These commitments shall apply to the present owner of the site, the
ApplicanUoperator, and all transferees, assignees, successors, personal
representatives, creditors in possession, trustees, and all other entities and individuals
who may receive all or any part of the title to the site described within the reclamation
plan. The owner of the site and the ApplicanUoperator shall be jointly and severally
liable for each of the commitments set forth herein and, for purposes of interpretation of
these commitments, the term "Applicant/operator" shall include the owner of the site.
15. Enforcement of Commitments. The DOCS shall have the right to
enforce each of these commitments. Except for such provisions as provide specific
rights to the DOCS and the City of Carmel, all Remonstrators and residents of the
Kingswood subdivision shall have the right to enforce these commitments. Further, in
the event a Remonstrator or resident of the Kingswood subdivision reasonably believes
that the DOCS or the City of Carmel is not performing its duties properly, such person
shall have standing to bring a civil action against the ApplicanUoperator and/or the City
of Carmel to enforce these commitments.
31
(..)
(..)
(..)
16. Control of Water by Carmel. The Applicant/operator hereby submits
to the jurisdiction of the City of Carmel for purposes of enforcing these commitments,
regulating underground water, surface water drainage, recycling of water, pumping of
water within the properties owned by Applicant/operator, water quality, reintroduction of
water to the aquifer north and west of the site, and such other issues of public health as
the City of Carmel shall reasonably deem to be within its jurisdiction.
17. Water Monitoring and Reports. The DOCS is hereby granted the power
by the Applicant/operator to require the Applicant/operator to provide or pay for such
experts' reports on water flows, water levels, water quality, water recycling, aquifer
management and control, drainage, and other matters involving the management of the
waters located within the City of Carmel as the DOCS shall reasonably believe
appropriate from time to time, to the extent they involve the site, the aquifer serving the
site, the wellfield capture area of Plant 4 of the Carmel water system, or any other
property to which the water entering the site might migrate or be pumped.
18. Other Monitorina and Reports. The DOCS is hereby granted the power
by the Applicant/operator to require the Applicant/operator to provide or pay for such
traffic studies and reports, dust monitoring, and noise monitoring and reports as the
DOCS shall reasonably believe appropriate from time to time.
19. Neighborhood Meetinas. The Applicant/operator and the DOCS shall
meet monthly, at a time and place set by the DOCS during regular business hours, with
any and all citizens who have comments, questions, suggestions, or criticisms with
respect to the design, management, or operation of the mine on the site and who shall
have requested such meeting. The DOCS may, but shall not be obligated to, act upon
information received in such meetings.
32
o
o
Conclusions and Recommendations
o
u
o
u
Conclusion and Recommendations by Remonstrators. After hearing all of
the evidence and carefully reviewing the Applications and submissions by MM, the
Remonstrators are more convinced than ever that it was never the intent of the Carmel
Common Council to allow a very large commercial aggregates mine to be permitted
within the S-1 zoning classification. Therefore, this Application should be rejected and
the Applicant instructed to reapply in the form of a rezoning application to the M-
1/Manufacturing District.
Secondly, the Application and evidence demonstrate that the Mueller South site
is surrounded by land that is currently used as legal nonconforming uses, and that the
development and use of the Mueller South site will require uses of such surrounding
land that would represent changes in such uses that are not permitted without approval
by the BZA in the form of a variance or Special Use. Therefore, this Application should
be rejected and the Applicant instructed to reapply in the form of a rezoning application
to the M-1/Manufacturing District and to include all of the land that will be impacted by
the use of the Mueller South site in such application.
Thirdly, the Application fails to include sufficient information to determine whether
or not the Applicant has control over the land and mineral resources that are the subject
of its Application. Therefore, the Application should be rejected or tabled pending
satisfaction by the DOCS that such information has been provided and the proper
parties are before the BZA.
Fourthly, based on the criteria that must be satisfied by MM in order to be
granted the requested Special Use, MM has failed to carry their burdens of proof or
persuasion; instead, the Remonstrators, their experts, and the very nature of the
request contained in the Application indicate that the mine could never meet the criteria
necessary for the BZA to approve the Application. Therefore, even if the above
recommendations are rejected, the Application should be rejected because:
1. The site does not have a particular suitability for the proposed use;
2. The costs to Carmel, the community, and the surrounding neighborhoods
far exceed any potential value to Carmel, the community, or the surrounding
neighborhoods by reason of the proposed mining;
3. The use would damage the integrity of the neighborhood because it is
incompatible with the existing neighborhood and any other single-family
residential use in the current zoning;
4. The use would have a seriously negative impact on the traffic in the
immediate area, creating hazards, dust, noise, and more congestion.
33
u
u
Financial Information on Applicant
u
u
u
u
MLM: Profile for M MARIETTA - Yahoo! Finance
r . - - _ -._ D:mf
..@RNANCEMfiM
Page 1 of2
Welcome, Guest [Sign In]
Sunday, August 1, 2004, 5:53pm ET - U.S. Markets Closed.
EinilnC(:LHome - MyYahooI - Yahoo! - Help R E U,
Quotes & Info
Enter SVmbol(s): I
e.g. YHOO, ^DJ!
Symbol Lookup I Finance Searcl
Martin Marietta Materials Ine (MLM)
Profile
Martin Marietta Materials Inc
2710 Wycliff Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Phone: (919) 781-4550
Fax: (919) 783-4535
Web Site: http://www.martinmarietta.com/
DETAILS
Index Membership:
Sector:
S&P 400 MidCap
~~plt~LGo..Qd~
.c...QnstfJJ.ctJon_::J~aw
Mate.[iaJ~
Industry:
Employees (last
reported count):
5,900
REUTERS ABRIDGED BUSlNESS SUMMARY
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. is a producer of
aggregates for the construction industry,
including highway, infrastructure, commercial
and residential construction. The Company also
manufactures and markets magnesia-based
chemical products used in industrial, agricultural
and environmental applications, and dolomitic
lime sold primarily to the steel industry, and is
developing structural composite products for
use in a variety of industries. In 2003, the
Company's aggregates segment accounted for
94% of its total net sales, and the specialty
products segment accounted for 6% of total net
sales.
Key Statistics
More from Reuters
Expanded Business Description
COMPANY WEBSITES
.HomeEil~
Search Yahoo! for:
MOrEtQD_Martin Marietta Material~.lnc
More from Reuters
REUTERS I' Reuters offers more in-depth
http://finance.yahoo.comlq/pr?s=MLM
To track stocks & IT
On Ju130: 43.75 l' 0.38 (0.
Get Profile for: I
Select A Loan
@:, Refinance
C Buy a Home
C
C
C
Home Improvement
Home Equity Loan
Debt Consolidation Loa n
REUTERS ABRIDGED FINANCAL SUMMARY
For the three months ended 3/04, revenues
increased 12% to $351.1 million. Net loss from
continuing operations before accnt. change fell
44% to $6.6 million. Results reflect higher
aggregates volume, and increased margins.
View._Financlals
More from Reuters
SigOifj~nlj)e~eIQQmen~ - HJgnligbls. -
f.erfolTIlance - RIDLQ~ComJLa.rison
OFFICERS
Pay Exercised
Stephen Zelnak, Jr., 59 $ 4.76M N/A
Chairman, Pres, CEO
Janice Henry, 52 $ 591.00K N/A
CFO, Sr. VP
Philip Sipling, 56
Exec. VP of Aggregates
Division; Chairman of $ 1.36M $ 203.00K
Magnesia Specialties
Division
Jonathan Stewart, 55
Sr. VP of HR
$ 1.09M
N/A
Donald Moe, 58
Sr. VP of Aggregates
$1.14M N/A
8/1/04
u
u
u
MLM: Profile forM MARlETT A - Yahoo! FinaIice
Page 2 of2
Company Research I Stock Screening , and
Risk Alerts on over 10,000 U.S. Equities.
Division; Pres - Carolina
Division
Dollar amounts are as of 31-Dec-03 and
compensation values are for the last fiscal year
ending on that date. "Pay. is salary, bonuses, etc.
"Exercised" is the value of options exercised during
the fiscal year.
View Insiders
More from Reuters:
Full List - Bios - ComQensation - QQtions
!lla Add to Portfolio 'fJt Set Alert El Email to a Friend
Get Profile for Another Symbol: I.... .
Sym.bolI.Qoku.p
. Annual Reports
. Sector Analysis
Uke stocks? See job openings at Yahoo! Finance.
Copyright@2oo4 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Ad Feedback
Quotes delayed, except where indicated otherwise.
Delay times are 15 mins for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and Amex. See also delay times for other exchanges.
Company information copyright Reuters.Quote data provided by Reuters.Data and information is provided for informational
purposes only, and is not intended for trading purposes. Neither Yahoo! nor any of its data or content providers (such as
Reuters, CSI and exchanges) shall be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
By accessing the Yahoo! site, a user agrees not to redistribute the information found therein.
http://finance.yahoo.comlq/pr?s=MLM
8/1/04
~.
MLM: Key Statistics forM MARIETTA- Yahoo! Finance
Page 10f2
Y.a.!:lQQ! My Yahoo! Mail
Search I
the web
U "hHOO!~FlNANCE JIml~~~~s~~ SignJJD
Finance Home - Hell
Sunday, August 1, 2004, 5:54pm ET - U.S. Markets Closed.
Welcome, Guest [Sig'lIn]
To track stocks & r
Quotes & Info
Enter Symbol(s): I
e,g. YHOO, ^DJI
Symbol Lookup I Finance Sear<
Martin Marietta Materials Inc (MLM)
FLAT-RATe Pridng
$1O.99Internd
equity trades.
On Jul 30: 43.75 1'- 0.38 (C
Ameritrade Apex ™ for top traders
Get_50_commisslQ-'l:-_{retLtrad~sPlus a $50 cash bonus if you qualify
QuoteSc_oJ)e.... View liquidity in a whole new way
Key Statistics Get Key Statistics for: I
Data provided by R~uteLS, except where noted. ADVERTISEMENT
VALUATION MEASURES
Market Cap (intraday): 2.11B
Enterprise Value (1-Aug-04)3: 2.79B
Trailing PIE (ttrn, intraday): 20.26
Forward PIE (fye 31-Dec-05)1: 14.88
PEG Ratio (5 yr expected)1: 1.73
U Price/Sales (ttm): 1.20
Price/Book (rnrq): 1.92
Enterprise Value/Revenue (ttrn)3: 1.59
Enterprise Value/EBITDA (ttrn)3: 8.37
FINANCIAL HIGHUGHTS
Fiscal Year
Fiscal Year Ends: 31-Dec TRADING INFORMATION
Most Recent Quarter (rnrq): 31-Mar-04 Stock Price History
Profitability Beta: 0.767
Profit Margin (ttrn): 6.09% 52-Week Change: 14.86%
Operating Margin (ttrn): 11.06% 52-Week Change (relative to 2.18%
S&P500):
Management Effectiveness 52-Week High (8-Jan-04): 50.69
Return on Assets (ttrn): 4.62% 52-Week Low (26-Sep-03): 36.20
Return on Equity (ttrn): 9.72% 50-Day Moving Average: 43.33
Income Statement 200-Day Moving Average: 44.52
Revenue (ttrn): 1.75B Share Statistics
Revenue Per Share (ttrn): 35.681 Average Volume (3 month): 181,227
Revenue Growth (lfy)3: 1.10% Average Volume (10 day): 186,000
U Gross Profit (ttrnf: 299.76M Shares Outstanding: 48.21M
EBITDA (ttm): 333.16M Float: 47.30M
Net Income Avl to Common (ttrn): 106.40M
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MLM
8/1/04
u
u
u
MLM: Key Statistics forM MARIETTA- Yahoo! Finance
DilutedEPS (ttm):
Earnings Growth (lfy)3:
Balance Sheet
Total Cash (mrq):
Total Cash Per Share (mrq):
Total Debt (mrq)2:
Total Debt/Equity (mrq):
Current Ratio (mrq):
Book Value Per Share (mrq):
Cash Flow Statement
From Operations (ttm)3:
Free Cashflow (ttm)3:
2.159
8.50%
52.78M
1.09
731.61M
0.671
2.542
22.625
240.98M
118.57M
View Financials (provided by EDGAR Online):
Income Statement - Balance_Sheet
C.asb_.ElQw
% Held by Insiders:
% Held by Institutions:
Shares Short (as of 8-Jul-04):
Daily Volume (as of 8-Jul-04):
Short Ratio (as of 8-Jul-04):
Short % of Float (as of 8-Jul-04):
Shares Short (prior month):
Dividends & Splits
Annual Dividend:
Dividend Yield:
Dividend Date:
Ex-Dividend Date:
Last Split Factor (new per 0Id)2:
Last Split Date:
Page 20f2
1.89%
95.00%
2.14M
N/A
11.955
4.52%
2.09M
0.72
1.66%
30-Jun-04
28-May-04
N/A
N/A
More from Reuters
Reuters offers more in-depth Company
R.e~~.llI~b, .st.Q~lLS~re.ening, and Bl~KAl.erts on
over 10,000 U.S. Equities.
~ Add~tQ~oJ1LQ[iQ 'Q.' ~ietAl.er!: t8l EmaiLtQ_<;i_Eri.enq
Get Key Statistics for Another Symbol: L
. AnnuaLB.epo.r:.ls
Symbol Lookup
. ~egQr Allgly$j~
SeeK~StaUsticsJ:f~lp for definitions of terms used.
Abbreviation Guide: K = Thousands; M = Millions; B = Billions
mrq = Most Recent Quarter (as of 31-Mar-04)
ttm = Trailing Twelve Months (as of 31-Mar-04)
Ify = Last Fiscal Year (as of 31-Dec-03)
fye = Fiscal Year Ending
1 = Data provided by Thomson; 2 = Data provided by EDGAR Online;
3 = Data derived from multiple sources or calculated by Yahoo! Finance
Like stocks? See job openings at Yahoo! Finance.
Copyright@2oo4 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. eri'laCYhliey - I.e_!m.s...2L~lc~ - C..oJ2Yri--9-h1EolJs;y
Quotes delayed, except where indicated otherwise.
Delay times are 15 mins for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and Amex. See also delay times for other exchanges.
Profitability, share and valuation data prOVided by Re.uters.Financials data provided by Edgar Onlin~.Quote data provided by
Reuters.Data and information is provided for informational purposes only, and is not intended for trading purposes. Neither
Yahoo! nor any of its data or content provkiers (such as Reuters, CSI and exchanges) shall be liable for any errors or delays in
the content, or for any actions taken in reliance therEOn. By accessing the Yahoo! site, a user agrees not to redistribute the
information found therein.
http://finance.yahoo.com/qlks?s=MLM
8/1/04
u
u
u
MLM: Balance Sheet for M MARIETTA - Yah06!Finance
HootF'NANCE .lfM
Page 1 of2
FJDan~HomS! - My)'aJ'loo1 - Yahoo! - Help
Wt!lcome, Guest [SignIn]
Sunday, August 1, 2004, 5:47pm ET - U.S. Markets Closed.
To track stocks & rr
Quotes & Info
Enter Symbol(s): I
e.g. YHOO, ^DJI
Symbol lookup I Finance Seard
Martin Marietta Materials Inc (MLM)
FLAT-RATE Pricing
$ H19S1lntermrt'
equity trades.
Ameritrade Apex™ for top traders
~UJU:ommission-free trades Plus a $50 cash bonus if you qualify
QuobtS~"'p~ View liquidity in a whole new way
Balance Sheet
View: Annual Data I Quar!esJy_tLata
PERIOD ENDING
Assets
Current Assets
Cash And Cash Equivalents
Short Term Investments
Net Receivables
Inventory
Other Current Assets
Total Current Assets
Long.Term Investments.. .
Property Plant and Equipment
Goodwill
Intangible Assets
Accumulated Amortization
Other Assets
Deferred Long Term Asset Charges
Total Assets
liabilities
Current Liabilities
Accounts Payable
ShorUCurrent Long Term Debt
Other Current Liabilities
Total Current liabilities
Long Term Debt
Other Liabilities
Deferred Long Term Liability Charges
Minority Interest
Negative Goodwill
Total Liabilities
http://finance.yahoo.comlq/bs?s=MLM&annual
On Jul 30: 43.751' 0.38 (0.
Get Balance Sheet for:
All numbers in thousands
31-Dec-03
31-Dec-O 1
31-Dec-02
125,133 1,379
256,181 254,271 234,880
213,843 239,726 231,003
26,362 32,152 28,970
621,519 526,149 496,232
1,042,432 1,067,576 1,082,189
577,586 577 ,449 571,186
25,142 31,972 35,782
63,414 55,384 39,191
2,330,093 2,258,530 2,224,580
144,036
1,068
75,060
220,164
717,073
132,907
130,102
153,172
11,389
33,266
197,827
733,471
135,726
108,496
153,481
4,490
34,066
192,037
797,385
110,282
102,664
1,200,246
1,175,520
1,202,368
8/1/04
Q
Q
Q
MLM: Balance Sheet for M MARIETTA - Yahoo! Finance
Stockholders' Equity
Misc Stocks Options Warrants
Redeemable Preferred Stock
Preferred Stock
Common Stock
Retained Earnings
Treasury Stock
Capital Surplus
Other Stockholder Equity
Total Stockholder Equity
Net Tangible Assets
486
702,643
488
642,734
435,412
(8,694)
1,129,847
$527,119
447,153
(7,365)
1,083,010
$473,589
Ga A~td_tQJ)or1fQJio '{;).' SetAJeJ:t r8l EmalLtOJ!Eri.end
Get Balance Sheet for Another Symbol: I
SymboUQo.Kup
. Se~tQLADalysis
Sign Up for a Free Trial to EDGAR Online Premium!
Get the critical business and financial information you need for more than
15,000 U.S. public companies.
Sign Up Now - Learn More
Uke stocks? See jo_lLop-enlll9li at Yahoo! Finance.
Page 2 of 2 .
485
584,707
437,020
1,022,212
$415,244
. Copyright@ 2004 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Etivac-y-E'QljCY - Iel1!!l>J~LS~rviGg - Cop.Y[igbtE.Q!icy
Quotes delayed, except where indicated otherwise.
Delay times are 15 mins for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and Amex. See also delay times for o.the.r-.excb.anges.
Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems. Inc. (CSI).Quote data provided by Reuters.Data and
information is provided for informational purposes only, and is not intended for trading purposes. Neither Yahoo! nor any of its
data or content providers (such as Reuters, CSI and exchanges) shall be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or fOr any
actions taken in reliance thereon. By accessing the Yahoo! site, a user agrees not to redistribute the information found therein.
http://finance.yahoo.comlq/bs?s=MLM&annual
8/1 /04
MLM: Income Statement for M MARIETTA - Yahoo! Finance
Page 1 of2
u
YllHO
FINANCEW
v
Finan.G~HQJT!~ - MyYahoo! - YahOO! - Help EDG
Sunday, August 1, 2004, 5:45pm ET - U.S. Markets Closed.
Welcome, Guest [Sign In]
To track stocks & IT
Quotes & Info
Enter Symbol(s): I
e.g. YHOO, ^DJI
Symbol lookup I Finance Searcl
Martin Marietta Materials Inc (MLM)
On Jul 30: 43.75 1" 0.38 (0.
Income. Statement
Get Income Statement for: I
View: Annual Data I QI,JarterlyData
PERIOD ENDING
Total Revenue
Cost of Revenue
Gross Profit
All numbers in thousands
31-Dec-03
1,711,453
1,411,690 .
299,763
31-Dec-02
1,692,437
1,401,543
290,894
31-Dec-O 1
1,718,050
1,414,300
303,750
Operating Expenses
. Research Development
Selling General and Administrative
Non Recurring
Others
Total Operating Expenses
U Operating Income or Loss
Income from Continui.ng Operations
Total Other Income/Expenses Net
Earnings Before lriterest And Taxes
Interest Expense
Income Before Tax
Income Tax Expense
Minority Interest
Net Income From Continuing Ops
612
121,373
369
115,836
556
105,949
(7,369)
Non-recurring Events
Discontinued Operations
Extraordinary Items
Effect Of Accounting Changes
Other Items
185,147 174,689 197,245
(429) 13,609 7,986
184,718 188,298 205,231
42,587 44,028 46,792
142,131 144,270 158,439
41,047 46,455 53,077
101,084 97,815 105,362
(587)
(6,874) (11,510)
93,623 86,305 105,362
$93,623 $86,305 $105,362
Net Income
Preferred Stock And Other Adjustments
Net Income Applicable To Common Shares
U
lEa Add to Portfolio '~' Set Alert 18 Email to a Friend
Get Income Statement for Another Symbol: I.@........
SymboLL.QQk.up
http://finance.yahoo.comlq/is?s=MLM&annual
8/1/04
u
u
u
MLM: Dash Flow for M MARlETT A - Yahoo! Finance
, FlNANCE.wIt
~. ..
Page 1 of2
Finance.J:1Qme - MyY.ahQQ! - YahQQ! - Help
Welcome, Guest [Sign In]
Sunday, August 1, 2004, 5:47pm ET - U.S. Markets Closed.
To track stocks & IT
Quotes & Info
Enter Symbol{s): I
e.g. YHOO, ^DJI
Martin Marietta Materials Inc (MLM)
Cash Flow
View: Annual Data I QY.stder!y.Qata
PERIOD ENDING
Net Income
31-Dec-03
93,623
Operating Activities, Cash Flows Provided By or Used In
Depreciation 139,606
Adjustments To Net Income 2,176
ChanQes In Accounts Receivables (62)
Changes In Liabilities 4,047
Changes In Inventories 18,039
Changes In Other Operating Activities 19,740
Total Cash Flow From Operating Activities 277,169
Investing Activities, Cash Flows Provided By or Used In
Capital Expenditures
Investments
Other Cashflows from Investing Activiti~s
Total Cash Flows From Investing Activities
(120,638)
20,860
(99,778)
Financing Activities, Cash Flows Provided By or Used In
Dividends Paid
Sale Purchase of Stock
Net Borrowings
Other Cash Flows from Financing Activities
Total Cash Flows From Financing Activities
Effect Of Exchange Rate Changes
Change In Cash and Cash Equivalents
(33,714)
(12,216)
(17,288)
(3,538)
(66,756)
$110,635
E2l Add to Portfolio 'fit Set Alert r:3l Emajl to a friend
Get Cash Flow for Another Symbol: I
Get Cash Flow for: I
Svmbol Lookup I Finance Searcl
On Jul 30: 43.75 l' 0.38 (0.
All numbers in thousands
31-Dec-02
86,305
138,696
(11,521)
(11,227)
(7,531 )
(14,329)
23,167
203,560
(152,680)
49,761
(102,919)
(28,278)
640
(74,686)
(102,324)
($1,683)
SymboLLQQ.kl,W
. S.egor Amdy~is
Sign Up for a Free Trial to EDGAR Online Premium!
Get the critical business and financial information you need for more than
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cf?s=MLM&annual
31-Dec-01
105,362
154,635
(12,682)
(9,373)
15,001
252,943
(194,386)
(175,799)
(370,185)
(26,927)
2,621
147,705
123,399
$6,157
8/1/04
u
MLM: Insider Roster for M MARIETTA - Yahoo! Finance
HOOtFINANCE.5
Page 1 of2
FinanceHQme - MyYahoo! - Yahoo! - Help
Welcome, Guest [SIgn_In]
Sunday, August 1, 2004, 5:51pm ET - U.s. Markets Closed.
To track stocks & rr
Quotes & Info
Enter Symbol(s): I
e.g. YHOO, ^DJI
Martin Marietta Materials Inc (MLM)
Symbol lookup I Finance Searcl
On Jul 30: 43.75 l' 0.38 (0.
FLAT.RATE Pricing II Ameritrade Apex™ for top traders
$10. .99Int~~. .... --'. . ..... ~~~mmission-free trade.5-Plus a $50 cash bonus if you qualify
e,quitytr~d~ QuoteScop~TM View liquidity in a whole new way
Insider Roster
INSIDER & FORM 144 HOLDERS*
Individual/Entity
Most Recent Trans.
BAR. ROSEL YN R.
Secretary
Acquisition (Non Open
Market)
28-Jan-04
Purchase
20-Dec-02
COLE. SUE W.
Director
U DUNCAN. MARGARET G. Proposed Sale
16-0ct-02
EASIERl.lf\J_,JLQJ"IAl",tU~H Disposition (Non Open
Vice President Market)
8-Dee-03
E8SIERLlf':.l._OQN8LQ_J./1L& Proposed Sale
QQI'iN.AB, 23-Aug-03
I:IENRY._Jl~,-NIC_E K Sale
Chief Financial Officer 26-Feb-04
HQI",BERJ2..J1AYIQ Proposed Sale
5-Sep-02
LlQYQ,_ANN_EJ:t Acquisition (Non Open
Controller Market)
28-Jan-04
MOE. DONALD M. Sale
Officer of Division 17-Feb-04
SttEPHAR_O.J)AMEl_G~ Proposed Sale
Officer ll-Feb-04
SHEPHERD. DANIEL G Sale
Officer ll-Feb-04
SIP_LING. PH1!Je.J Acquisition (Non Open
Executive Viee President Market)
28- Jan-04
U STEWART. JONATHAN T Acquisition (Non Open
Senior Vice President Market)
28- Jan-04
http://finance.yahoo.comlq/ir?s=MLM
Get Insider Roster for: t
ADVERTISEMENT
Shares Owned as of
Trans. Date
16,614
28-Jan-04
4,250
20-Dec-02
Not Reported
5,947
8-Dec-03
Not Reported
27,441
26-Feb-04
Not Reported
9,848
28-Jan-04
36,144
17 -Feb-04
7,704
22-May-03
11 ,467
11-Feb-04
47,391
28-Jan-04
33,116
28-Jan-04
8/1/04
Q
Q
u
MLM: Insider Roster for M MARIETTA..; Yahoo! Finance
Page 2 of2
WAIIEHSQN>-DAYIDS
Vice President
Acquisition (Non Open
Market)
28- Jan-04
Acquisition (Non Open
Market)
28- Jan-04
6,365
28-Jan-04
ZELNAK. STEPHEN P. JR
Chairman
120,035
28-Jan-04
ViewIransactionsJorJnsiders&JnsititulionatHolders
* Insider roster data is derived solely from the last 24 months of Form 3. Fo..rm4 and Forll
144 SEe filings.
~ Add to Portfolio '0.' Set Alert G Email to a Friend
Get Insider Roster for Another Symbol: I
Symbol Lookup
. IQd~:S__SJ;.c-,=mOgS
. M~r~-.IsJ~LA~Q!,Jlsi.tioos
like stocks? See iOjLOP__~!1lJ)9_$ at Yahoo! Finance.
Copyright@ 2004 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - ~~y
Quotes delayed, except where indicated otherwise,
Delay times are 15 mins for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and Amex. See also delay times for other exchanges.
Quote data provided by Reuters.Insider data and information are provided by fD_GAR_Qnliof:,_Inc. and Vicke[s__StQck
Re_searcb.Data and information is provided for informational purposes only, and is not intended for trading purposes. Neither'
Yahoo! nor any of its data or content providers (such as Reuters, CSI and exchanges) shall be liable for any errors or delays in
the content, or for any actions taken in reliance theroon. By accessing the Yahoo! site, a user agrees not to redistribute the
information found therein.
http://finance.yahoo.comlq/ir?s=MLM
8/1 /04
\ MLM: InsiderTransllctions for M MARIETTA - Yahoo! Finance
Page 1 of 6
u
~.' , .... .S.... ......~..r FINANC'#! ~ S~J~Ich - finance_Home - YaoQQ! -Help
JL.Q: ~..@
Welcome, Guest [SigILIn]
Quotes & Info
Sunday, August 1, 2004, 5:50pm ET - U.S. Markets Closed.
To track stocks & IT
Enter Symbol(s): I
e.g. YHOO, ^DJI
Symbol Lookup I Finance Searcl
Martin Marietta Materials Inc (MLM)
.... '. CommiS$lon~
FREE Trades
join today.
See the Ameritrade difference.
Get 30 commissio~free trade,LWhen you open your account now
5-Second Guaranke...(some limitations apply)
Insider Transactions
NET SHARE PURCHASE ACTIVITY
Insider Purchases - Last 6 Months
Shares Trans
Purchases N/A N/A
Sales 12,000 3
Net Shares Purchased (12,000) 3
(Sold)
Total Insider Shares N/A N/A
Held
U % Net Shares
Purchased (1.3 N/A
(Sold)
Net Institutional Purchases - Prior Qtr to
Latest Qtr
Net Shares Purchased (Sold)
% Change in Institutional
Shares Held
Shares
1,056,000
2.2%
Data provided by Re.u.te.r.;
On Jul 30: 43.75 l' 0.38 (0.
Get Insider Transactions for: t _
SlQQk__EiC_~~Lba~ed
on Insider Trading.
;;h1ili1Ifill~illiti1i:iliL~IlilliillHHl~t;ii1;!~;U~i H ~~lr~::~;; !!~ H! t; ~HH11 ~E!H~::1
INSIDER & RULE 144 TRANSACTIONS REPORTED - LAST TWO YEARS
Date Insider Shares Transaction Value*
26-Feb-04 HENRYdANICJ;:-.K 5,788 Sale at $46.50 - $46.71 per share. $270,0002
Chief Financial Officer
26-Feb-Q4 HENRY. JANICE K 1,212 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $57,121
Chief Financial Officer $47.13 per share.
26-Feb-04 HENRY. JANICE K 7,000 Option Exercise at $22 per share. $154,000
Chief Financial Officer
26-Feb-Q4 HENRY. JANICE K 5,788 Planned Sale $269,1421
Officer
U 17 -Feb-Q4 MaE. DONALD M. 4,993 Sale at $46.48 - $46.53 per share. $232,0002
Officer of Division
http://finance.yahoo.comlq/it?s=MLM
8/1/04
.MLM:lnsider Transactions for M MARlETT A -Yahoo! Finance
17-Feb-04 MOE.DONALDM, 1.007 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $45.878
Officer of Division $45.56 per share.
U 17 -Feb-04 MQE...DONALD_M, 6.000 Option Exercise at $22 per share. $132.000
Officer of Division
11-Feb-04 SHEEHJ\RO-LQANIEh_G, 2.000 Planned Sale $93.2401
Officer
11-Feb-Q4 SHEPHERD. DANIEL G 1.693 Sale at $46.62 - $46.67 per share. $79.0002
Officer
10-Feb-Q4 SHEPHERD. DANIEL G 307 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $14.109
Officer $45.96 per share.
10-Feb-04 SHEPHERD. DANIEL G 2.000 Option Exercise at $24.25 per share. $48.500
Officer
28-Jan-04 MOE. DONALD M. 1,361 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 - N/A
Officer of Division $37.44 per share.
28-Jan-04 HENRY. JANICE K 2.955 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 - N/A
Chief Financial Officer $37.44 per share.
28-Jan-Q4 Sl:LEPHEBQ.J)ANLEJ"J3 1 ,499 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 - N/A
Officer of Division $37.44 per share.
28-Jan-Q4 WATTERSON. DAVID S 1.311 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 - N/A
Vice President $37.44 per share.
28-Jan-Q4 h!JlYO~NNE_H, 951 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 - N/A
Controller $37.44 per share.
0 28-Jan-Q4 BAR ROSEL YN R 2.175 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 - N/A
Secretary $37.44 per share.
28-Jan-Q4 ZEhr-.lAILSTEE!:iEN P. JR 11,701 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 - N/A
Chairman $37.44 per share.
28-Jan-Q4 SIEWART-,-JONATHAt'~,U 1,922 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 - N/A
Senior Vice President $37.44 per share.
28-Jan-Q4 SJPLlNG.EJ::llLlP J 3.129 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 - N/A
Executive Vice President $37.44 per share.
30-Dec-Q3 ZELNA~,-SJ"EPHEN P. JR 6.626 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $0 N/A
Chairman per share.
10-Dec-Q3 BAR ROSfLYN R 1,000 Planned Sale $36,4571
Officer
10-Dec-Q3 SI~UN(LPHlJ.JP_J 7,519 Sale at $43.67 - $43.82 per share. $329,0002
Executive Vice President
10-Dec-Q3 BAR BOSELY..NB, 836 Sale at $43.60 - $43.61 per share. $36.0002
Secretary
10-Dec-Q3 eAR RQSEL YN R 164 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $7.286
Secretary $44.43 per share.
10-Dec-Q3 BAB.>-ROSEL YN R 1.000 Option Exercise at $22 per share. $22.000
Secretary
10-Dec-Q3 SIPLlNG. PHILIP J 200 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $0 N/A
Executive Vice President per share.
0 10-Dec-Q3 SIPLlNG. PHILIP J 9,000 Planned Sale $401,5801
Officer
http://finance.yahoo.comlq/it?s=MLM
Page 2 of 6
8/1 /04
MLM: Insider Transactions for M MARlETT A -Yahoo! Finance
9-Dee-03 S.IP!..JNG..PHJLIP..J 1,481 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $66,067
Executive Vice President $44.61 per share.
U 9-Dee-03 SJELtNG.EJ:!lLIP.J 9,000 Option Exercise at $22 per share. $198,000
Executive Vice President
8-Dee-03 SIELJNG..PHJLJP.J 898 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $40,059
Executive Vice President $44.61 per share.
8-Dee-03 STEWART. JONATHAN T 531 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $23,687
Senior Vice President $44.61 per share.
8-Dee-03 ZELNAK. STEPHEN P. JR 1,783 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $79,539
Chairman $44.61 per share.
8-Dee-03 EASTERLIN. DONALD J.III 504 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $22,483
Vice President $44.61 per share.
8-Dee-03 BAR. ROSEL YN R. 419 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $18,691
Secretary $44.61 per share.
8-Dee-03 SHEPHERD. DANIEL G 456 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $20,342
Vice President $44.61 per share.
8-Dee-03 H~NRY,-Jl\NtCEJ~ 774 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $34,528
Chief Financial Officer $44.61 per share.
8-Dee-03 MOE. DONALD M. 601 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $26,810
Senior Vice President $44.61 per share.
1-Dee-03 EASIERLlN..QQNALD_J~jU 384 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $16,573
Vice President $43.16 per share.
U 1-Dee-03 EASTERLIN. DONALD J. III 1,224 Option Exercise at $32.368 per share. $39,618
Vice President
1-Dee-03 SJP!..mGJ'HILJ.EJ 604 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $26,068
Executive Vice President $43.16 per share.
. 1-Dee-03 SIP.!-ING...E-'::ll!..JPJ 1,924 Option Exercise at $32.368 per share. $62,276
Executive Vice President
1-Dee-03 SIEWABT.J.QNA THAN T 172 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $7,423
Senior Vice President $43.16 per share.
1-Dee-03 STEWART. JONATHAN T 546 Option Exercise at $32.368 per share. $17,672
Senior Vice President
1-Dee-03 ZE_LNAKL-SIJ;PHEN P. ,JR 3,029 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $130,731
Chairman $43.16 per share.
1-Dee-03 ZE:LNAK._STEEHj;N P. JR 9,655 Option Exercise at $32.368 per share. $312,513
Chairman
1-Dee-03 BAR. ROSEL YN.R.. 234 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $10,099
Secretary $43.16 per share.
1-Dee-03 BAB..BQSELYN R 745 Option Exercise at $32.368 per share. $24,114
Secretary
1-Dee-03 LLQYQ..hNNE H2 107 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $4,618
Chief Accounting Officer $43.16 per share.
1-Dee-03 WATTERSON. DAVID S 194 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $8,373
Vice President $43.16 per share.
U 1-Dec-03 SHEPHERD. DANIEL G 207 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $8,934
Vice President $43.16 per share.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=MLM
Page 3 of6
8/1/04
MLM: Insider Transactions for M MARlETT A - Yahoo! Finance
1-Dec-03 StlEJ:lHERQ,_DAN1ELG 659 Option Exercise at $32.368 per share. $21,330
Vice President
U 1-Dec-03 HENR'l.JANICE_K 685 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $29,564
Chief Financial Officer $43.16 per share.
1-Dec-03 HENR'l,JANICE__K 2,182 Option Exercise at $32.368 per share. $70,626
Chief Financial Officer
1-Dec-03 MOE. DONALD M. 248 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $10,703
Senior Vice President $43.16 per share.
1-Dec-03 MOE. DONALD M. 788 Option Exercise at $32.368 per share. $25,505
Senior Vice President
13-Nov-03 WATTERSON. DAVID S 5,248 Statement of Ownership N/A
Chief Investment Officer
25-Aug-03 EASTERLIN. DONALD J. III 881 Sale at $37.85 - $37.87 per share. $33,0002
Vice President
23-Aug-03 EASTERLIN. DONALD Jill & 881 Planned Sale $33,9881
DQNNl\J3.
21-Aug-03 EA.STERLtN,JJO~ALD_LU1 119 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $4,555
Vice President $38.28 per share.
21-Aug-03 EASTERLIN. DONALD J. III 1,000 Option Exercise at $24.25 per share. $24,250
Vice President
12-Jun-03 EASTERLtN..__QQNAL_Q-"'~jll 935 Sale at $36.94 per share. $34,538
Vice President
U 29-May-03 LLOYD, ANNE H. 9,004 Statement of Ownership N/A
Controller
29-May-03 ZEll'JAKLSTEEJ:1EN P~B 60,000 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $0 N/A
Chairman per share.
22-May-03 SHEEHAR!J,D_AN1ELJi. 582 Planned Sale $18,9081
Officer
22-May-03 ~1:::tEEHARD",-QANI~L_G. 582 Sale at $32.46 - $32.55 per share. $19,0002
Vice President
14-May-03 _1:;A5.TERllN.JJO_NALLtLHl 1,263 Sale at $32 per share. $40,416
Vice President
28-Jan-03 EA$.TERI,JN,J20NALD J~m 1,955 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at N/A
Vice President $22.52 - $28.15 per share.
28-Jan-03 MQE...l2QNALOllll~ 1,418 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at N/A
Senior Vice President $22.52 - $28.15 per share.
28-Jan-03 HEJ'.JRY. JANIC~K 3,513 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $79,112
Chief Financial Officer $22.52 per share.
28-Jan-03 J3AR._RQ~EL'(N R 2,156 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at N/A
Secretary $22.52 - $28.15 per share.
28-Jan-03 ZEtNAK..~IEPHEN P~ JR 14,876 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at N/A
Chairman $22.52 - $28.15 per share.
28-Jan-03 STEWART. JONATHAN T 2,645 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at N/A
Senior Vice President $22.52 - $28.15 per share.
U 28-Jan-03 SIPLlNG. PHILIP J 4,303 Acquisition (Non Open Market) at N/A
Executive Vice President $22.52 - $28.15 per share.
http://finance.yahoo.comlq/it?s=MLM
Page 4 of 6
8/1/04
MLM:.lnsider Transactions for M MARIETTA - Yahoo! Finance
2-Jan-03 SJE'lJNG..EHJLJE'_J 20,000 Acquisition (Non Open Market) N/A
Executive Vice President
U 2-Jan-03 SIEWARI._JQNAIHANI 20,000 Acquisition (Non Open Market) N/A
Senior Vice President
2-Jan-03 6AB,...RQSE_LYNB. 5,000 Acquisition (Non Open Market) N/A
Secretary
2-Jan-03 MQE:->QQNAL!:LM. 20,000 Acquisition (Non Open Market) N/A
Senior Vice President
23-Dec-02 ZELNAK,SIEE'HENE._J.B 5,090 Disposition (Non Open Market) N/A
Chairman
20-Dec-02 QQ1-E,SUE__W, 1,750 Purchase at $30.40 - $30.45 per share. $53,0002
Director
2-Dec-02 MO_E.J)QNAlrtM~ 472 Option Exercise N/A
Senior Vice President
2-Dec-02 HENRY. JANICE K 1,695 Option Exercise N/A
Chief Financial Officer
2-Dec-02 BAR. ROSEL YN R. 607 Option Exercise N/A
Secretary
2-Dec-02 ZELNAK. STEPHEN P. JR 8,019 Option Exercise N/A
Chairman
2-Dec-02 STEWART. JONATHAN T 757 Option Exercise N/A
Senior Vice President
U 2-Dec-02 SIPLlNG. PHILIP J 2,259 Option Exercise N/A
Executive Vice President
2-Dec-02 SHEPHARD. DANIEL G. 418 Option Exercise N/A
Treasurer
2-Dec-02 EASIERlJN..Q01\tAL!2.,LJJJ 1,007 Option Exercise N/A
Vice President
2-Dec-02 EASTERLIN. DONALD J. III 333 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $10,466
Vice President $31.43 per share.
2-Dec-02 MQE.o-DONALD M. 156 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $4,903
Senior Vice President $31.43 per share.
2-Dec-02 HENR~ JANtcE-.K 560 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $17,600
Chief Financial Officer $31.43 per share.
2-Dec-02 B...AfLROSEL YN R. 201 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $6,317
Secretary $31.43 per share.
2-Dec-02 ZELNAK. STEPHEN P. JR 2,647 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $83,195
Chairman $31.43 per share.
2-Dec-02 STEWART. JONATHAN-.I 250 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $7,857
Senior Vice President $31.43 per share.
2-Dec-02 SIPLlIliG....!?.HILlP J 746 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $23,446
Executive Vice President $31.43 per share.
2-Dec-02 SI::fEE'HARD->-DANIEL G. 138 Disposition (Non Open Market) at $4,337
Treasurer $31.43 per share.
U 16-oct-02 QUJ'.l-<:~AN. MARGABELG-, 2,000 Planned Sale $63,2801
5-Sep-02 H_QLBEHG->nAV1Q 10,900 Planned Sale $405,1531
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=MLM
Page 5 of6
8/1/04
MLM: MajorHolders for M MARIETTA - Yahoo !Finance
Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail
o
Search I
the web
Welcome, Guest [Signtn]
Sunday, August 1, 2004, 5:49pm ET - U.S. Markets Closed.
Quotes & Info
Enter Symbol(s): I
e.g. YHOO, ^DJ!
Symbol lookup I Finance Searc
Martin Marietta Materials Inc (MLM)
Major Holders
BREAKDOWN
% of Shares Held by All Insider and 5%
Owners:
2%
% of Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual 95%
Fund Owners:
% of Float Held by Institutional & Mutual 97%
Fund Owners:
Number of Institutions Holding Shares: 10
TOP INSIDER & RULE 144 HOLDERS
Holder Shares Reported
0 ZE~LNAK, 120,035 28-Jan-D4
STEPt:lENP~_JB
SIELING,PH!UE> 47,391 28-Jan-04
J
MQE.J1QNAI...J2 36,144 17 -Feb-D4
M
SIEWABI. 33,116 28-Jan-04
JQt',tAItlAt:tI
HE_I'iR'L_ J~"'lCE 27,441 26-Feb-D4
_K
TOP INSTITUTIONAL HOLDERS
Holder Shares % Out
Axa 4,079,526 8.46
American Century Investment 3,595,813 7.46
Management Inc.
UBS Global Asset Management 3,517,001 7.3
FMR Corporation (Fidelity Management 2,161,175 4.48
& Research Corp)
Gardner Russo & Gardner 1,921,066 3.98
Marshfield Associates 1,758,552 3.65
0 Barclays Bank Pic 1,262,836 2.62
State Street Corporation 1,248,236 2.59
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MLM
Page 1 of2
finance Home - Hell
To track stocks & r
On Jul 30: 43.751' 0.38 (0
Get Major Holders for: L
ADVERTISEMENT
Value'" Reported
$188,310,922 31-Mar-D4
$165,982,730 31-Mar-D4
$162,344,768 31-Mar-04
$99,759,839 31-Mar-04
$88,676,407 31-Mar-04
$81,174,761 31-Mar-04
$58,292,510 31-Mar-04
$57,618,574 31-Mar-04
8/1/04
MLM: Major Holders for M MARIETTA- Yahoo! Finance
Page 2 of2
Franklin Resources, Inc 1,205,402 2.5 $55,641,357 31-Mar-G4
Q Davis Selected Advisers, LP 6,457,400 13.39 $298,073,587 31-Mar-04
TOP MUTUAL FUND HOLDERS
Holder Shares % Out Value* Reported
Davis New York Venture Fund 4,031,300 8.36 $185,439,800 31-Jan-04
American Century Value 1,414,080 2.93 $66,419,339 31-Dec-03
American Century Variable Products- 1,146,495 2.38 $53,850,871 31-Dec-03
Vp Value
Selected American Shares Inc 930,600 1.93 $43,710,283 31-Dec-G3
Franklin Mutual Ser Fd-Mutual Shares 927,950 1.92 $43,585,812 31-Dec-G3
Fd
State Street Research Aurora Fund 877 ,300 1.82 $31,977 ,585 30-Sep-G3
Merrill Lynch Small Cap Value Fund 819,300 1.7 $29,863,485 30-Sep-03
AXP Equity Select Fund 514,600 1.07 $21,906,522 30-Nov-G3
Sunamerica Series Trust-Davis Venture 464,800 0.96 $21,380,800 31-Jan-04
Value Portfolio
Sunamerica Focused Multicap Value 415,433 0.86 $17,020,290 31-0ct-G3
Portfolio
View Transactions for Insiders & Institutional Holders
Q
* Value shown is computed using the security's price on the report date given.
!i3 AddiQEoJ"tLoJio 't>>.' S~t AIft..r1 ElEmaill(Hl Friend
Get Major Holders for Another Symbol: 1m
SymboL1.ookuJ;!
. IQ.~lgy-'-s_SECFiHog~
. M~gers &Ac..qyisition~
like stocks? See jQIu)-p~nings at Yahoo! Finance.
Copyright@2oo4 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Tems of Service - Copyright Policy
Quotes delayed, except where indicated otherwise.
Delay times are 15 mins for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and Amex. See also delay times for other exchanges.
Quote data provided by Reuters.Ownership data provided by ~ckers....StockBe.searcb (1-800-645-5043) Vickers shall have no
liability for the accuracy of the information furnished on the Vickers Data Base, or for delays, omissions or opinions expressed
therein. Vickers has asserted and maintains all proprietary rights in the Vickers Data Base or information received. You may not
use or permit anyone to use the information for any illegal purpose or to furnish such information to any person, firm or' branch
office for re-use or re-sale. Data and information is provided for informational purposes only, and is not intended for trading
purposes. Neither Yahoo! nor any of its data or content providers (such as Reuters, CSI and exchanges) shall be liable for any
errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. By accessing the Yahoo! site, a user agrees not to
redistribute the information found therein.
Q
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MLM
8/1/04
u
u
Tax Assessment Information
Martin Marietta/American Aggregates
E. & H. Mueller Development, LLC
u
v
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. & American Aggregates Corporation
Properties' Assessed Values as of March 1, 2003
Parcel # Assessed value
1714040000018000 $ 634,500.00
1714040000007000 $ 184,200.00
1614040000016000 $ 2,000.00
1714040000016000 $ 33,900.00
1714010000017000 $ 22,100.00
1614010000007000 $ 1,300.00
1614040000007000 $ 1,500.00
1614040000007000 $ 18,000.00
1614040000018000 $ 6,700.00
1714090000012000 $ 2,539,300.00
1714090000012900 $ 273,700.00
1714090000001000 $ 1,646,400:00
1714090000011000 $ 199,800.00
1714090000005000 $ 231,200.00
1714090000002000 $ 294,800.00
1714090000001900 $ 103,000.00
1714030000024000 $ 3,000.00
1714030000023000 $ 2,100.00
V 1714080000008000 $ 34,800.00
1714080000010000 $ 1,600.00
1714080000011000 $ 327,500.00
1710140000005900 $ 111,300.00
1714080000009000 $ 1,300.00
1714080000008000 $ 9,500.00
Total $ 6,683,500.00
E & H Mueller Development LLC
Properties' Assessed Valuesas of March 1, 2003
1714040000019000 $ 166,500.00
1714090000003000 $ 341,700.00
Total $ 508,200.00
V
u
u
Tax Assessment Information
Kingswood, Wood Creek, and Sycamore Farms
u
U Kingswood, Woodcreek, and Sycamore Farm
Properties' Assessed Values as of March 1, 2003
Address Parcel Number Value
4912 REGENCY PL 1614040105001000 $ 356,500.00
4920 REGENCY PL 1614040105002000 $ 309,900.00
4928 REGENCY PL, 1614040105003000 $ 274,600.00
4936 REGENCY PL 1614040105004000 $ 248,600.00
4944 REGENCY PL 1614040105005000 $ 298,400.00
4952 REGENCY PL, 1614040105006000 $ 280,500.00
4960 REGENCY PL 1614040105007000 $ 300,100.00
11273 REGENCY PL 1614040105008000 $ 277,100.00
11265 Regency LN, 1614040105009000 $ 313,000.00
11257 Regency LN 1614040105010000 $ 290,300.00
11249 REGENCY LN 1614040105011000 $ 261,600.00
4970 WOODCREEK DR 1614040105012000 $ 298,200.00
11260 WIlliAMS CT 1614040105013000 $ 284,600.00
11268 Williams a 1614040105014000 $ 291,800.00
11276 WILUAMS CT 1614040105015000 $ 267,300.00
11282 Williams CT 1614040105016000 $ 275,100.00
11277 WILUAMS CT 1614040105017000 $ 327,500.00
11269 WILUAMS CT 1614040105018000 $ 304,100.00
U 11261 WILUAMS CT, 1614040105019000 $ 302,700.00
11251 WILUAMS CT 1614040105020000 $ 254,900.00
5022 WOODCREEK DR 1614040105021000 $ 239,800.00
5023 WOODCREEK DR 1614040105022000 $ 267,200.00
5011 WILUAMS DR 1614040105023000 $ 280,400.00
5003 WILUAMS DR 1614040105024000 $ 256,700.00
5112 WILUAMS OR 1614040105025000 $ 276,700.00
5120 WILUAMS OR 1614040105026000 $ 226,900.00
5117 Williams OR 1614040105027000 $ 262,200.00
5009 WILUAMS OR, 1614040105028000 $ 272,100.00
5001 Williams OR 1614040105029000 $ 306,700.00
4987 WILUAMS DR, 1614040105030000 $ 266,000.00
4979 Williams DR 1614040105031000 $ 245,800.00
4971 Williams Dr 1614040105032000 $ 319,000.00
4970 WILUAMS DR 1614040105033000 $ 258,600.00
4978 Williams DR, 1614040105034000 $ 301,300.00
4986 WILUAMS DR 1614040105035000 $ 255,000.00
4969 WOODCREEK DR 1614040105036000 $ 270,800.00
4961 WOODCREEK DR 1614040105037000 $ 247,500.00
4953 WOODCREEK DR 1614040105038000 $ 242,600.00
4945 Woodcreek Dr 1614040105039000 $ 271,600.00
U 11232 WESTMINSTER
WAY 1614040105040000 $ 280,600.00
U 4923 WOODCREEK
DR, 1614040105041000 $ 377,500.00
4915 WOODCREEK DR 1614040105042000 $ 273,300.00
4909 Woodcreek DR 1614040105043000 $ 287,100.00
4908 WOODCREEK DR 1614040105044000 $ 263,500.00
4916 Woodcreek DR 1614040105045000 $ 255,600.00
4924 WOODCREEK DR 1614040105046000 $ 265,300.00
4932 WOODCREEK DR 1614040105047000 $ 311,200.00
4940 WOODCREEK DR 1614040105048000 $ 262,300.00
11250 REGENCY LN, 1614040105049000 $ 261,000.00
4951 REGENCY PL 1614040105050000 $ 258,200.00
4943 REGENCY PL 1614040105051000 $ 265,600.00
4935 REGENCY PL 1614040105052000 $ 287,900.00
4927 Regency PI, 1614040105053000 $ 294,300.00
4919 REGENCY PL 1614040105054000 $ 283,200.00
4911 REGENCY PL 1614040105055000 $ 352,100.00
11206 WESTMINSTER
cr 1614040104001000 $ 245,000.00
11210 WESTMINSTER
cr 1614040104002000 $ 302,100.00
11214 WESTMINSTER
cr 1614040104003000 $ 313,200.00
4944 WESTMINSTER
U cr 1614040104004000 $ 277,300.00
4962 WIlliAMS cr 1614040104005000 $ 294,600.00
11529 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101001000 $ 126,500.00
11523 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101002000 $ 118,800.00
11511 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101003000 $ 126,000.00
11518 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101004000 $ 137,100.00
11526 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101005000 $ 125,700.00
11532 CREEKSIDE LN
E, 1614040101006000 $ 125,200.00
11538 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101007000 $ 123,300.00
11546 CREEKSIDE LN
E, 1614040101008000 $ 119,200.00
11552 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101009000 $ 124,400.00
11558 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101010000 $ 129,600.00
11564 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101011000 $ 120,400.00
11570 CREEKSIDE LN
E, 1614040101012000 $ 130,700.00
11576 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101013000 $ 130,100.00
U 11582 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101014000 $ 135,600.00
U 11588 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101015000 $ 116,800.00
11594 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101016000 $ 114,700.00
11585 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101018000 $ 108,700.00
11573 CREEKSIDE LN
E, 1614040101019000 $ 110,500.00
11567 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101020000 $ 117,100.00
11555 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101021000 $ 138,100.00
11549 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101022000 $ 125,700.00
11543 CREEKSIDE LN
E, 1614040101023000 $ 109,600.00
11541 CREEKSIDE LN
E 1614040101024000 $ 117,500.00
11535 Creekside Ln 1614040101025000 $ 132,400.00
11280 OLDAElD DR 1614040103001000 $ 127,500.00
11267 OLDAELD DR 1614040103002000 $ 126,400.00
11255 Oldfield Dr 1614040103003000 $ 122,300.00
11250 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040103004000 $ 126,200.00
11252 Woodcreek DR, 1614040103005000 $ 157,400.00
11254 Woodcreek DR 1614040103006000 $ 110,800.00
U 11256 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040103007000 $ 133,000.00
11260 Woodcreek DR 1614040103008000 $ 119,500.00
11264 WooOCREEK
DR 1614040103009000 $ 106,100.00
11272 WOODCREEK
DR, 1614040103010000 $ 119,600.00
11278 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040103011000 $ 135,000.00
11290 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040103012000 $ 119,500.00
11291 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040103013000 $ 155,800.00
11289 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040103014000 $ 110,500.00
11277 Woodcreek DR 1614040103015000 $ 121,200.00
11269 Woodcreek DR, 1614040103016000 $ 155,900.00
11261 WooDCREEK
DR, 1614040103017000 $ 119,500.00
5254 WooDCREEK cr 1614040103018000 $ 134,800.00
5251 Woodcreek cr 1614040103019000 $ 113,800.00
5260 WESlWooD DR 1614040103020000 $ 132,900.00
5246 WESTWOOD DR 1614040103021000 $ 121,600.00
Q 5243 WOODCREEK cr 1614040103022000 $ 124,900.00
U 5235 Woodcreek CT 1614040103023000 $ 138,000.00
11257 Woodcreek Dr 1614040103024000 $ 108,400.00
11229 WOODBURY
DR 1614040103025000 $ 121,700.00
11217 Woodbury DR 1614040103026000 $ 156,900.00
11228 Woodbury Dr 1614040103027000 $ 132,800.00
11255 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040103028000 $ 133,700.00
11253 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040103029000 $ 124,600.00
5184 OLDFIELD CT 1614040103030000 $ 155,000.00
5170 OLDFIELD CT 1614040103031000 $ 104,800.00
11251 WooDCREEK
DR, 1614040103032000 $ 118,700.00
11249 Woodcreek DR 1614040103033000 $ 158,100.00
5158 Oldfield CT 1614040103034000 $ 161,100.00
11222 Oldfield DR 1614040103035000 $ 140,800.00
11245 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040103036000 $ 112,300.00
11266 OLDFIELD DR 1614040103038000 $ 155,100.00
5188 OLDFIELD CT 1614040103039000 $ 141,400.00
11224 WOODBURY
DR 1614040103040000 $ 131,500.00
U 5188 WOODSIDE CT 1614040102001000 $ 137,300.00
11341 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040102002000 $ 145,400.00
5326 Underwood CT 1614040102003000 $ 136,600.00
5348 UNDERWOOD
CT 1614040102004000 $ 152,200.00
5333 UNDERWOOD
CT 1614040102005000 $ 134,100.00
11295 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040102006000 $ 130,400.00
5304 UNDERWOOD
CT 1614040102007000 $ 130,600.00
11298 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040102008000 $ 135,400.00
5247 SHERWOOD CT 1614040102009000 $ 169,200.00
5235 SHERWOOD CT 1614040102010000 $ 146,900.00
5223 SHERWOOD CT, 1614040102011000 $ 148,100.00
5201 SHERWOOD CT, 1614040102012000 $ 122,000.00
5202 SHERWOOD CT 1614040102013000 $ 137,700.00
11315 Oldfield DR 1614040102015000 $ 124,900.00
11297 OLDFIELD DR, 1614040102014000 $ 132,300.00
5224 SHERWOOD CT 1614040102016000 $ 145,100.00
U 11329 OLDFIELD DR 1614040102017000 $ 137,400.00
U 5246 SHERWOOD cr 1614040102018000 $ 160,700.00
11347 OLDFIEW DR 1614040102019000 $ 128,800.00
5248 SHERWOOD cr 1614040102020000 $ 112,900.00
11302 Woodaeek Dr, 1614040102021000 $ 150,000.00
11324 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040102022000 $ 130,800.00
11346 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040102023000 $ 116,400.00
11366 Woodaeek DR 1614040102024000 $ 152,000.00
11358 OLDFIEW DR 1614040102025000 $ 151,400.00
11352 FIELDSTONE
cr 1614040102026000 $ 132,800.00
11328 FIELDSTONE
cr 1614040102027000 $ 125,500.00
11336 FIELDSTONE
cr 1614040102028000 $ 135,900.00
11344 FIELDSTONE
cr 1614040102029000 $ 136,600.00
11348 Fieldstone cr 1614040102030000 $ 140,200.00
11372 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040102031000 $ 124,000.00
11378 Woodaeek DR 1614040102032000 $ 139,400.00
11386 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040102033000 $ 138,300.00
U 11381 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040102034000 $ 136,600.00
11373 Woodaeek DR 1614040102035000 $ 143,200.00
11365 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040102036000 $ 122,300.00
11357 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040102037000 $ 116,900.00
11349 Woodaeek DR 1614040102038000 $ 125,800.00
5179 WOODSIDE cr 1614040102039000 $ 155,900.00
5157 Woodside cr 1614040102040000 $ 152,400.00
5135 WOODSIDE cr 1614040102041000 $ 122,800.00
11401 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040102042000 $ 116,300.00
5123 WOODSIDE cr 1614040102043000 $ 125,300.00
5111 Woodside cr 1614040102044000 $ 108,400.00
11402 Woodaeek DR 1614040102045000 $ 114,700.00
11426 WooDCREEK
DR 1614040102046000 $ 134,300.00
11444 Woodaeek Dr 1614040102047000 $ 112,500.00
5108 Woodside cr 1614040102048000 $ 115,800.00
U 11468 Wood creek DR 1614040102049000 $ 114,300.00
5122 WOODSIDE cr 1614040102051000 $ 156,000.00
U 5144 Woodside CT 1614040102052000 $ 129,100.00
5166 WOODSIDE CT 1614040102053000 $ 131,500.00
4835 Greenspire DR 1614040106001000 $ 259,800.00
4851 Greenspire DR, 1614040106002000 $ 260,500.00
4824 PENDULA DR 1614040106003000 $ 273,600.00
4812 PENDULA DR 1614040106004000 $ 276,800.00
4802 Pendula DR 1614040106005000 $ 272,700.00
4811 Pendula DR, 1614040106006000 $ 298,500.00
4823 Pendula
Dr,Cannel 1614040106007000 $ 307,600.00
4835 pendula Dr 1614040106008000 $ 290,800.00
4847 Pendula DR 1614040106009000 $ 296,700.00
4859 PENDULA DR 1614040106010000 $ 269,500.00
11409 BURKWooD 1614040106011000 $ 265,600.00
11415 BURKWooD
DR 1614040106012000 $ 249,500.00
11427 Burkwood DR 1614040106013000 $ 286,900.00
11443 BURKWooD
DR 1614040106014000 $ 275,600.00
11455 BURKWooD
DR 1614040106015000 $ 258,000.00
11469 BURKWooD
DR, 1614040106016000 $ 310,400.00
11473 Burkwood DR 1614040106017000 $ 257,500.00
11485 BURKWooD
U DR 1614040106018000 $ 282,300.00
11491 Burkwood Dr 1614040106019000 $ 307,900.00
11523 Burkwood Dr 1614040106020000 $ 183,600.00
4800 KERRIA CT 1614040106021000 $ 276,200.00
4801 Kerria CT 1614040106022000 $ 291,400.00
4803 KERRIA CT 1614040106023000 $ 279,300.00
11494 BURKWooD
DR 1614040106024000 $ 258,700.00
11482 Burkwood DR 1614040106025000 $ 271,400.00
11470 Burkwood DR 1614040106026000 $ 280,300.00
11448 BURKWooD
DR 1614040106027000 $ 281,900.00
11426 BURKWooD
DR 1614040106028000 $ 255,400.00
11410 BURKWooD
DR 1614040106029000 $ 279,100.00
4852 GREENSPIRE DR 1614040106030000 $ 282,100.00
4848 GREENSPIRE DR 1614040106031000 $ 267,600.00
4836 Greenspire DR 1614040106032000 $ 272,400.00
4824 GREENSPIRE DR 1614040106033000 $ 257,500.00
4812 GREENSPIRE DR 1614040106034000 $ 253,400.00
4800 GREENSPIRE DR 1614040106035000 $ 276,600.00
4861 Pendula DR 1614040107001000 $ 248,200.00
U 4863 Pendula DR 1614040107002000 $ 280,600.00
11387 REGENCY LN, 1614040107003000 $ 302,400.00
0 11399 REGENCY LN 1614040107004000 $ 251,800.00
11405 REGENCY LN, 1614040107005000 $ 319,300.00
11417 REGENCY LN 1614040107006000 $ 271,500.00
11429 REGENCY LN 1614040107007000 $ 274,600.00
11431 Regency Ln 1614040107008000 $ 284,800.00
11439 REGENCY LN, 1614040107009000 $ 264,300.00
11445 REGENCY LN 1614040107010000 $ 286,600.00
11457 Regency Ln 1614040107011000 $ 314,800.00
11463 Regency Ln, 1614040107012000 $ 284,000.00
11469 Regency LN, 1614040107013000 $ 300,100.00
11473 REGENCY LN 1614040107014000 $ 284,000.00
11485 REGENCY LN 1614040107015000 $ 295,200.00
11493 Regency Ln 1614040107016000 $ 297,400.00
11499 REGENCY LN 1614040107017000 $ 273,700.00
11501 REGENCY LN 1614040107018000 $ 348,500.00
11511 REGENCY LN 1614040107019000 $ 321,200.00
11492 Regency LN 1614040107020000 $ 285,100.00
11484 REGENCY LN 1614040107021000 $ 289,200.00
11472 REGENCY LN, 1614040107022000 $ 271,300.00
11468 REGENCY LN 1614040107023000 $ 289,000.00
11456 Regency LN 1614040107024000 $ 281,100.00
11444 Regency LN 1614040107025000 $ 305,800.00
11432 Regency LN 1614040107026000 $ 289,300.00
11428 REGENCY LN 1614040107027000 $ 324,600.00
11416 Regency LN 1614040107028000 $ 322,700.00
0 11404 REGENCY LN 1614040107029000 $ 275,300.00
11389 REGENCY LN, 1614040107030000 $ 291,400.00
11495 Regency LN, 1614040107033000 $ 181,100.00
5028 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304001000 $ 194,600.00
5038 Kingswood DR 1614040304002000 $ 279,600.00
5058 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304003000 $ 272,700.00
5068 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304004000 $ 291,300.00
5088 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304005000 $ 272,000.00
5098 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304006000 $ 249,200.00
5108 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304007000 $ 269,300.00
5118 KINGSWOOD DR 1614040304008000 $ 242,900.00
5128 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304009000 $ 261,600.00
11170 WOODBURY
DR 1614040304010000 $ 231,200.00
11175 Woodbury DR 1614040304011000 $ 244,100.00
11167 WOODBURY
DR 1614040304012000 $ 323,900.00
11159 WOODBURY
DR 1614040304013000 $ 267,800.00
U 11149 WOODBURY
DR, 1614040304014000 $ 298,300.00
0 11139 Woodbury DR 1614040304015000 $ 284,600.00
11129 WOODBURY
DR 1614040304016000 $ 247,700.00
11119 WOODBURY
DR 1614040304017000 $ 270,500.00
11109 WOODBURY
DR, 1614040304018000 $ 257,200.00
11095 HUNTINGTON
CT 1614040304019000 $ 257,400.00
11087 HUNTINGTON
CT 1614040304020000 $ 250,900.00
11079 HUNTINGTON
CT, 1614040304021000 $ 272,800.00
11078 HUNTINGTON
CT 1614040304022000 $ 293,200.00
11088 HUNTINGTON
CT 1614040304023000 $ 297,700.00
5123 St Charles PI, 1614040304024000 $ 249,700.00
5113 St Charles PI, 1614040304025000 $ 294,500.00
5103 St Charles PI, 1614040304026000 $ 261,300.00
5093 Sf CHARLES PL 1614040304027000 $ 276,200.00
5083 Sf CHARLES PL, 1614040304028000 $ 274,800.00
5073 Sf CHARLES PL 1614040304029000 $ 270,000.00
5063 Sf CHARLES PL 1614040304030000 $ 330,500.00
0 5053 Sf CHARLES PL 1614040304031000 $ 279,000.00
5043 Sf CHARLES PL 1614040304032000 $ 276,900.00
5033 Sf CHARLES PL 1614040304033000 $ 256,500.00
5023 Sf CHARLES PL 1614040304034000 $ 266,000.00
5028 Sf CHARLES PL 1614040304035000 $ 319,000.00
5038 Sf CHARLES PL 1614040304036000 $ 379,200.00
5048 Sf CHARLES PL 1614040304037000 $ 296,000.00
5058 Sf CHARLES PL, 1614040304038000 $ 272,700.00
5068 St Charles PI 1614040304039000 $ 281,600.00
5078 Sf CHARLES PL 1614040304040000 $ 248,700.00
5088 St Charles PI 1614040304041000 $ 259,800.00
5098 Sf CHARLES PL, 1614040304042000 $ 294,100.00
5108 Sf CHARLES PL 1614040304043000 $ 262,600.00
5118 Sf CHARLES PL 1614040304044000 $ 233,700.00
5129 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040304045000 $ 276,000.00
0 5119 Huntington Dr 1614040304046000 $ 244,700.00
5109 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040304047000 $ 272,300.00
Q 5099 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040304048000 $ 299,600.00
5089 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040304049000 $ 334,500.00
5079 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040304050000 $ 288,300.00
5069 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040304051000 $ 253,700.00
5059 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040304052000 $ 363,100.00
5049 Huntington DR 1614040304053000 $ 281,400.00
5039 Huntington Dr 1614040304054000 $ 322,300.00
5029 Huntington DR, 1614040304055000 $ 252,700.00
5028 Huntington DR 1614040304056000 $ 277,300.00
5038 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040304057000 $ 305,000.00
5048 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040304058000 $ 248,300.00
5058 Huntington DR 1614040304059000 $ 259,200.00
5068 HUNTINGTON
DR, 1614040304060000 $ 259,500.00
5078 Huntington
DR,Carmel 1614040304061000 $ 268,900.00
5088 HUNTINGTON
DR, 1614040304062000 $ 279,500.00
5098 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040304063000 $ 280,900.00
Q 5108 Huntington DR 1614040304064000 $ 292,400.00
5118 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040304065000 $ 283,600.00
5128 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040304066000 $ 265,600.00
11110 N WooDURY
DR 1614040304067000 $ 280,700.00
11122 WOODBURY
DR 1614040304068000 $ 270,800.00
11134 WOODBURY
DR, 1614040304069000 $ 261,700.00
5139 Kingswood Dr 1614040304070000 $ 252,200.00
5129 KINGSWooD
DR, 1614040304071000 $ 279,300.00
5119 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304072000 $ 327,600.00
5109 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304073000 $ 259,400.00
5099 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304074000 $ 275,200.00
5089 Kingswood Dr 1614040304075000 $ 237,000.00
5079 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304076000 $ 264,900.00
5069 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304077000 $ 276,000.00
5059 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304078000 $ 301,900.00
5049 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304079000 $ 312,600.00
Q 5039 KINGSWooD DR 1614040304080000 $ 234,300.00
0 5029 KINGSWOOD DR 1614040304081000 $ 241,000.00
4980 KINGSWOOD DR 1614040303001000 $ 312,900.00
4990 KINGSWOOD DR 1614040303002000 $ 259,200.00
11158 Bradbury PI, 1614040303003000 $ 263,400.00
5016 KINGSWOOD DR 1614040303004000 $ 239,200.00
5017 KINGSWOOD
DR, 1614040303005000 $ 306,500.00
11136 BRADBURY PL 1614040303006000 $ 283,200.00
4989 Kingswoocl Dr 1614040303007000 $ 260,500.00
4979 Kingswoocl DR 1614040303008000 $ 249,600.00
4969 KINGSWOOD DR 1614040303009000 $ 265,800.00
11125 WESTMINSTER
WAY 1614040303010000 $ 316,400.00
4972 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040303011000 $ 319,000.00
4982 Huntington Dr 1614040303012000 $ 234,500.00
4994 Huntington Dr 1614040303013000 $ 228,300.00
5000 Huntington DR 1614040303014000 $ 272,500.00
11121 Bradbury PI 1614040303015000 $ 252,800.00
5019 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040303016000 $ 290,900.00
0 11104 BRADBURY PL 1614040303017000 $ 258,300.00
4989 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040303018000 $ 284,300.00
4979 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040303019000 $ 258,900.00
4969 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040303020000 $ 251,300.00
4957 Huntington Dr 1614040303021000 $ 281,800.00
4945 HUNTINGTON
DR 1614040303022000 $ 234,000.00
11105 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303023000 $ 299,500.00
11085 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303024000 $ 271,900.00
4984 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303025000 $ 273,800.00
4958 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303026000 $ 291,300.00
4968 St Charles PI 1614040303027000 $ 259,300.00
,
4978 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303028000 $ 258,600.00
4988 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303029000 $ 318,900.00
5000 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303030000 $ 307,800.00
5018 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303031000 $ 255,400.00
5013 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303032000 $ 296,100.00
0 5003 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303033000 $ 254,900.00
U 4993 ST CHARLES PL, 1614040303034000 $ 269,800.00
4983 St Charles PI 1614040303035000 $ 227,200.00
4973 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303036000 $ 252,300.00
4963 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303037000 $ 314,600.00
4953 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303038000 $ 329,600.00
4943 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303039000 $ 271,700.00
4933 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303040000 $ 273,000.00
11080 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303041000 $ 323,200.00
11088 ST CHARLES
PLC 1614040303042000 $ 382,200.00
11098 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303043000 $ 257,900.00
11112 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303044000 $ 264,300.00
11120 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303045000 $ 271,600.00
11128 ST CHARLES
cr 1614040303046000 $ 259,400.00
11136 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303047000 $ 355,300.00
11142 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303048000 $ 331,400.00
U 11141 ST CHARLES
PL, 1614040303049000 $ 353,500.00
11133 ST CHARLES PL 1614040303050000 $ 276,000.00
11125 St Charles PI, 1614040303051000 $ 295,200.00
11122 WESTMINSTER
WAY 1614040303052000 $ 298,800.00
11134 WESTMINSTER
WAY, 1614040303053000 $ 294,900.00
11144 WESTMINSTER
WAY 1614040303054000 $ 284,000.00
11212 OLDFIELD DR 1614040301001000 $ 124,200.00
5151 OLDFIELD CR 1614040301002000 $ 145,600.00
5169 OLDFIELD cr 1614040301003000 $ 184,200.00
5185 OLDFIELD cr 1614040301004000 $ 115,100.00
11209 WOODBURY
DR 1614040301007000 $ 182,500.00
5257 WESTWOOD DR 1614040301008000 $ 122,300.00
5245 WESTWOOD DR 1614040301009000 $ 126,100.00
5237 WESTWOOD DR 1614040301010000 $ 142,500.00
5223 WESTWOOD DR 1614040301011000 $ 134,300.00
5209 WESTWOOD DR 1614040301012000 $ 118,200.00
U 5195 WESTWOOD DR 1614040301013000 $ 126,100.00
Q 5175 WESTWOOD DR 1614040301014000 $ 136,100.00
5161 Westwood DR 1614040301015000 $ 133,700.00
11172 OLDFIELD DR 1614040301016000 $ 110,500.00
11190 Oldfield Dr 1614040301017000 $ 114,600.00
11198 Oldfield DR 1614040301018000 $ 121,700.00
1560 WESTWOOD DR 1614040301019000 $ 128,700.00
5178 WESTWOOD DR 1614040301020000 $ 110,000.00
5186 WESTWOOD DR 1614040301021000 $ 141,000.00
5200 WESTWOOD DR 1614040301022000 $ 147,700.00
5208 WESTWOOD DR 1614040301023000 $ 142,200.00
1614040301024000 $ 19,600.00
5002 Westwood DR, 1614040305001000 $ 298,800.00
5008 WESTWOOD OR 1614040305002000 $ 323,100.00
5014 WESTWOOD DR, 1614040305003000 $ 313,400.00
5020 WESTWOOD DR 1614040305004000 $ 276,700.00
5026 WESTWOOD DR 1614040305005000 $. 286,700.00
Q 5027 WESTWOOD DR 1614040305006000 $ 250,400.00
5019 WESTWOOD DR 1614040305007000 $ 252,500.00
5011 WESTWOOD OR 1614040305008000 $ 295,400.00
5005 WESTWOOD DR 1614040305009000 $ 284,800.00
4999 Westwood DR 1614040305010000 $ 308,400.00
11203 Westminster
Wa, 1614040302001000 $ 253,500.00
11189 WESTMINSTER
WAY 1614040302002000 $ 356,900.00
11179 WESTMINSTER
WAY 1614040302003000 $ 313,500.00
11169 WESTMINSTER
WAY 1614040302004000 $ 275,700.00
11161 WESTMINSTER
WAY 1614040302005000 $ 353,800.00
11168 WESTMINSTER
WAY 1614040302006000 $ 304,600.00
11178 WESTMINSTER
WAY 1614040302007000 $ 315,900.00
11188 Westminster
Wa, 1614040302008000 $ 295,900.00
11202 WESTMINSTER
WAY 1614040302009000 $ 361,200.00
11201 WESTMINSTER
CT 1614040302010000 $ 320,400.00
11189 WESTMINSTER
U CT 1614040302011000 $ 350,600.00
11179 WESTMINSTER
CT 1614040302012000 $ 343,700.00
'I
U 11177 Westminster cr 1614040302013000 $ 326,900.00
11178 WESTMINSTER
cr, 1614040302014000 $ 360,900.00
11188 WESTMINSTER
cr 1614040302015000 $ 249,100.00
11196 WESTMINSTER
cr, 1614040302016000 $ 351,100.00
I Total $ 98,743,000.00
u
u
u
u
The Gasper Letter
u
u
u
u
rx
ENVlRESTORE ENGINEERING, LLP
7002 GRAHAM ROAD, SUITE 106 PHONE: (317) 596-0735
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46220 FAX: (317) 596-0736
August 4, 2004
Kingswood Homeowners' Association
Carmel, Indiana
Attn: Mr. William D. McEvoy, President
Mr. Larry Kane, Esq., Mining Committee Chair
Re: ED!dneerin2 Support Services
Preliminary Review of Application for Board of Zoning Appeals Action Special Use
Approval Request - Mueller Property South - Proposed Sand and Gravel Operation
Gentlemen:
Upon cursory review of the referenced Application for special use approval from the BZA to allow
mining activities on the currently residentially-zoned parcel known as Mueller Property South, the
following observations and comments related to possible deficiencies in the Application and possible
operational difficulties have been prepared.
A.
Ownership Questions. The Applicant is not the property owner and is reportedly just leasing
from the property owner. The terms of this relationship have not been presented in the
Application. The lease agreement could be for one year, or five years, or at the whim of the
property owner. The relationship between the Applicant and the property owner is quite
likely to have escape clauses based on the inability to meet production/profitability criteria,
resource quality issues, litigation involving one or both parties, conveyance of the property to
a third party, or any number of real-world scenarios. A prime example of an escape clause
could involve the ability/or inability of the Applicant to secure the necessary permits to mine.
B. Ownership Liabilities. The Applicant is applying for a zoning modification and agreeing to
long-term land use criteria that only the property owner can realistically agree to. For
example, stream relocation permit conditions require a five-year performance commitment.
The relationship between the property owner and the lessee might change dramatically during
a five-year window. Another example involves Special Condition No. 17 to the Permit from
the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, which states: "the proposed
channel must be maintained at the at the same shape and grade in perpetuity". It is
unrealistic to think that a lessee will meet this condition beyond the point of bond release.
Courts in some venues have held that "in perpetuity" is practically limited by bonding that
element of work for a twenty-year period.
- I -
u
u
C.
Ownership of Mineral Rights. As a lessee~ courts have historically ruled that a mining
company is essentially a contractor working for a property owner. This designation is
dependent upon the actual contractual relationship between the two parties. If, on the other
hand, the mining company owns the mineral rights, then it is held to a much higher duty than
if a property owner is simply leasing the mineral rights and collecting a percentage of the
profits. Regardless, the Applicant and the property owner must both legally commit to long-
term liabilities/responsibilities associated with the mining of the property. To solidify
liability responsibilities, the more legally consistent requirement should be established
mandating that an Applicant should at least own the mineral rights (and possibly the property
outright) before being allowed to make an application to the BZA for a particular parcel.
D.
Long-term Liabilities. Long.term financial liability becomes a major issue when weighing
the various submittals by the Applicant for the same 96-acre tract. These "alternatives"
include (i) excavation of sand and gravel in a de-watered setting using mobile equipment, (ii)
extending the limestone quarry to the North by continued blasting, and (iii) an alternative to
quarry pit expansion through underground mining of the limestone. Short-term liability
involves issues such as noise pollution, water quality degradation, roadway maintenance, and
structural response to surface and subsurface blasting, among others. Long-term liability
issues could include well field depletion/protection issues, contamination of groundwater
resources, and structural damage due to mine subsidence. These issues may not come to light
for several years after mining, but they are all well known possible effects of the mining
methods that have been presented by the Applicant. The simple question of who should be
responsible to pay to rectify these impacts after production has stopped should be addressed
before creating the potential for catastrophic failure is permitted to proceed. Additionally,
individual property owners should not have to attempt to sue billion dollar corporations with
dedicated legal staff in order to attempt to rectify issues as extreme as their homes being
rendered uninhabitable.
E. Future Mining at Mueller South. The proposed sand and gravel operation and stream channel
relocation at the Mueller Property South ("Site") is an obvious precursor to the Applicant's
ultimate goal of extending their current quarry pit northward to at least 106th Street through
the excavation of limestone resources to a depth of approximately 215 feet below the original
ground surface. The Application, submitted to the BZA for Special Use Approval
("Application") on property that has been zoned S-I, Residential for several years, was
submitted with four other Applications for both the identical property and adjacent parcels.
Based on an assumed production rate of one million tons per year, 200 feet (thickness) of
marketable resources (i.e., sand, gravel and limestone), and an average insitu unit weight of
1.65 tons per cubic yard of material, the annual production would only impact an area
approximately 55 feet on each side. At the assumed production rates, these joint
Applications identify many decades of resources for the Applicant. It also indicates the
Applicant's desire and, if approved, necessity to continue dewatering the very large pit for
many years to come.
F.
u
Not Necessary to Relocate Blue Woods Creek. The proposed relocation of Blue Woods
Creek is not necessary for recovering most of the sand and gravel from the Site. Maintaining
the current stream location and its associated riparian corridor, however, would dictate the
-2-
u
u
construction of two 35 to :45." acre gravel pits. If quany extension to l06th Street is not
approved, but sand arid gravel extraction is allowed from the Mueller. South property. A
significant buffer that is not excavated should be established to reduce the impacts to the
property, increasing the possibility that at least a portion of the property will be ultimately
used for residential construction. The buffer should be extensive enough to resulting an
impoundment versus an excavation to the bedrock surface extending all the way to the quany
highwall, as is being requested by the Applicant. An excavation to bedrock, as depicted in
the Application, essentially eliminates all other potential land uses for the property except
quarrying.
G.
Unintended Condemnation of Limestone by Granting Sand and Gravel. In allowing the
Applicant to extract sand and gravel resources from property that he does not own and which
has been excluded from use in this manner by effective use of zoning policy for many years,
the City may be inviting legal action to force it to concede the right to mine the limestone
resources by whatever means the Applicant deems appropriate. The courts have established
significant case law relative to governmental bodies "taking" property from citizens. These
takings issues can manifest themselves very simply by telling a property owner that he can "-
extract one resource from his land but not another. Another example is if a government
entity inadvertently, through a unique ruling, denies a property owner the ability to make a
living off of his own land and natural resources by restricting the owner's use or access to the
natural resources. For example, courts have ruled that a mining company that is forced to
leave a large block of coal in order to allow long-term support of the ground beneath a
sensitive structure (i.e., a home, public building, etc.) is entitled to receive the fair market
value for the resources that had to be left in the ground. In this instance, it could be fairly
convincingly argued that, once the zoning restriction is lifted to allow mining of the sand and
gravel, if the City tries to restrict the owner of the limestone from mining in it also, the City
might be forced to pay the mineral rights owner the value of the limestone resources left in
the ground. The court may not consider as relevant the fact that the resources. based on the
current zoning status of the property. are not worth anything unless the mining company
convinces the City that it should be allowed to mine by convincing the BZA that the benefit
to the community significantly outweighs the potential hazards and other negative impacts to
the surrounding community.
H. Relocation of Blue Woods Creek Only Necessary for Pit Expansion. The proposed relocation
of Blue Woods Creek is, however, very necessary for the continuation of the existing quany
pit because the stream has already substantially limited significant expansion of the pit
northward. Permits associated with relocation of Blue Woods Creek are submitted with the
sand and gravel Application.
1.
u
Extra Noise of DIY Mining. The proposed final configuration for the sand and gravel
operation is not "substantially similar to" any other sand and gravel operation in the region.
The final proposed configuration is, essentially, a 45-ft deep scoop-shaped excavation that
funnels down toward an exposed, very steep highwall approximately 185 feet in height.
Likewise, the mining method and proposed tools are not similar to those employed at other
nearby gravel pits. Significantly, all other gravel pits in the region utilize draglines or
dredges for resource recovery because the pits extend a significant depth below the local
- 3 -
u
u
L.
u
water table. With the adjacent 185. ft deep pit and the constant drainage and pumping that
take place in the pit, the Applicant is projecting that the sand and gravel deposits will be
essentially dry. This condition would very likely be accentuated with the new, deeper
channel for the relocated Blue Woods Creek acting as a cut-off drain for a significant portion
of the groundwater that presently flows to the pit. Therefore, the Applicant is stating that
conventional earthmoving equipment such as front-end loaders, backhoes and trucks will be
employed in the. extraction of sand and gravel. The closest comparison for the BZA and
local residents to make relative to increased noise and airborne particulates (i.e., dust) would
be an active construction site or landfill where large earthmoving equipment are employed.
No "damping" effects or dust suppression, normally gained through traditional gravel pits'
association with abundant water, should be expected at this site.
J.
True Goal: To Mine the Limestone. The Applicant has stated that extraction of sand and
gravel will take from three (3) to five (5) years. Additionally, the Applicant has stated that
the sand and gravel will be sold and/or stockpiled at the property. Assuming an average unit
weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot, an average thickness of 45 feet, and an excavation area
of 70 acres, the total sand and gravel resource at the proposed site would be approximately
8.25 million tons. The Applicant states that the City of Carmel consumes about 1.0 million
tons of aggregates (sand/gravel and limestone) each year. These resources are mined by a
number of companies at a number of pits and quarries throughout the metropolitan area.
Since there will be an apparent glut of these resources, the Applicant has reserved the right to
stockpile the resources for an indefinite period of time. However, it is clear that the three (3)
to five (5) year projection for mining the sand and gravel may be significantly optimistic and
that production from this field may essentially stop production at other sand and gravel pits in
the area. It is also clear that the primary focus is not to efficiently and expeditiously mine the
sand and gravel resources as stated in the proposal, but rather to, as quickly as possible move
these resources out of the way so that quarrying of the underlying, more valuable limestone
resources can continue into areas reserved by the City for residential development.
K. Reclamation as Lake Uncertain and Distant. Based on the observation that the current 96th
Street quarry has been in operation since at least the mid-1960's, and the proposed resource
area essentially doubles the size and life of the mine, residents and regulators will likely wait
40 years before the closure of the mine site and the hoped-for beautifullakefront property that
is being touted as the ultimate land use for this property. As a matter of record, the Applicant
has yet to perform water balance relationships that prove beyond any doubt that the very large
ultimate pit will have enough contributing watershed and groundwater recharge to offset
large evaporation losses that should be anticipated for a reservoir of this size. The minimum
design ratio of seven acres of contributing watershed for every acre of reservoir surface area
has long been the rule of thumb for central Indiana water resources planning.
More Quarry Expansion Likely. Based upon the proposed footprint of the re-Iocated Blue
Woods Creek, it appears that the large parcel immediately west of the Mueller south parcel
and east of Gray Road is also planned for continued quarry activity. It is likely that the
Applicant is assuming that, since sand and gravel reserves were mined decades ago in this
50+acre parcel by a prior owner of the property, the Applicant is automatically "Grand-
fathered in" to some level of right to mine in this area without going through a permit process
-4-
u
N.
u
or being subjected to a local oversight authority. This likely position by the Applicant may
result in an additional SO acres and fifteen years added to the life of the mine. Based upon
past production and advancing rates of this mine, it is anticipated that the proposed quarry
expansion up to 106th Street could add 40 or more years to the life of the mine. The
expansion of the area of impact to the community through underground extraction (both
ongoing and proposed) is, therefore, very premature at this time and should be halted until
such time that the City has mechanisms in play to allow it to effectively regulate the mining
industry.
M.
Required Other Permits Expired. Permits issued by various State and Federal agencies are
significantly co-dependent upon each other, so much that certain State permits have expired
and have caused Federal permits to consequently be nullified. For example, Condition No.4
ofIDEM's Section 401 permit stipulates that for the permit to remain valid, the permit holder
must "implement the re-vegetation plan as described in the Blue Woods Creek Relocation
Riparian Planting Scheme, Job No. 011015, dated July 2002, and received in this office on
July 29, 2002, within one year of the effective date of this certification, unless IDEM grants a
written extension upon request." Additionally, The Corp of Engineers permit stipulates,
'you may proceed with the work subject to the enclosed general conditions, the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Section 401 Water Quality Certification
dated (wQC) August 27, 2002, and any noted special conditions." Other inter-dependent
conditions exist on many of the permits, likewise potentially rendering them invalid.
No Performance Standards. Controls. or Statutory Penalties. There are no performance
standards, ordinances, guidance documents or any other regulatory controls in place to
regulate the operator and make sure that there are consequences (both financial and criminal)
for knowingly or negligently causing significant harm to the environment, the local residents,
the City's water supply or the citizens employed by the Applicant or otherwise knowingly or
unknowingly exposed to the mine environment.
O. Planned Reclamation is Uncertain. There are no land use planning criteria in play that assure
that the property, after mining is completed, can be turned into a long term asset for the
community. For instance, under the current Application, the final configuration of the
property will substantially consist of a 26-foot deep depression that is either framed by a 19 ft
tall "permanent screening berm", a relocated excavated stream channel, or a nearly vertical
highwall. The dug-out area would be excavated to bedrock and then seeded, without any
stipulation for topsoil or other acceptable growth medium to be placed over the rock. The
ability of this seed to germinate and thrive, as required in the channel relocation phase of the
work, is not stipulated. The only standard that has been set is that the Applicant commits to
planting the relatively small area incorporated by the 3 (H) to 1 (V) sideslopes with "domestic
grass coverage of not less than 80% per square yard on all sides lopes". This is an
immeasurable criterion because the planting density and whether the plants are dead or alive
after the first growing season have not been stipulated. Additionally, the plant species have
not been designated. The common thistle or kudzu, or other such potentially devastating
weed could meet the undefined general criteria for "domestic grass", but they are extremely
undesirable species to have growing in the center of a community.
u
- 5 -
P.
Removal of Berms. Screening berms are lost space for development and, if left in place after
mining, as presented in the Application, represent a significant financial burden to subsequent
property owners who want to attempt to develop the property for an alternative land use.
Q
Q. Illusory Reclamation Guidelines. The Applicant has stated the following in response to
establishing and adhering to reclamation performance standards: "All reclamation shall
comply generally with the reclamation guidelines adopted by the Indiana Mineral
Aggregates Association, a copy of which shall be provided to the Director upon request." It
is difficult to imagine that this statement could ever be less restrictive. First, the Applicant
does not commit to any performance standard whatsoever. Secondly, the Applicant only
states that he will "generally" comply with "guidelines" written by the industry under the
guise of their own lobby group. Additionally, these "guidelines", which "shall be generally"
complied with, are not provided with the Application for public or regulatory scrutiny and are
only available to an unspecified "Director" if he specifically requests a copy from the
Applicant.
R.
Rq>resentations to Other Governmental Authorities Unknown. Complete, legible copies of
all documents submitted to various regulatory agencies as a requirement for issuance of
various operational permits, should be attached with their respective permits in the
Application. Each of the permits has conditions that must be adhered to in order to remain in
compliance with that particular regulating authority. The conditions were developed as a
direct result of submittals to the various agencies. In assessing whether residentially zoned
property should allow for a "Special Use" as potentially destructive and disruptive to a
neighborhood as mining, the decision makers should have all of the information relied upon
by other agencies in reaching their various decisions.
Q
S. Supplemental Information. Based on the letter of transaction dated December 13,2002 from
Mr. John Tiberi, Vice President and General manager for Martin Marietta ("Applicant"), the
Application was not complete at the time of submittal. Mr. Tiberi states, "We intend to
supplement the applications with additional information and expert testimony prior to and at
the hearing of the Board of Zoning Appeals. It is unclear what this supplemental information
pertains to.
T. Significant Increase in Noise Pollution. The heavy, mobile equipment employed in
excavation of sand and gravel will be significantly adding to the noise pollution and
respirable dust concerns already evident in the neighborhoods surrounding the mine site.
Trucks will be elevated to the ground surface for haulage of the sand and gravel and the
sound from operation will no longer be buffered to some extent by a 215 foot deep pit..
Numerous studies have linked increased noise pollution to a multitude of health issues. No
threshold limits, mechanisms for measuring compliance or ramifications for non-compliance
have been established for protection of the residents of Carmel. Since the quarry sells both
limestone products and sand and gravel, the anticipated significant increase in noise
pollution, generated by having front-end loaders, backhoes and haulage trucks backing up
and working essentially at the ground surface, will be in addition to the noise already
routinely generated by blasting, rock crushing and other limestone-based operations.
Q
-6-
u
u
u
U. Increased Dust Pollution. Increased levels of respirable dust has been linked to an increased
incidence of asthma and other respiratory disorders. The Applicant is quite likely financially
motivated to remove as much of the sand and gravel as soon as possible in order to expose
more limestone for the quarry, This is because quarrying is significantly less expensive than
underground mining. In order to facilitate this activity, the Applicant may shut down
production at the Mueller North pit and other local pits to concentrate on this multi-year
endeavor. This is assuming that the demand for these products remains essentially the same.
With this concentration of effort and availability of immediately loadable, dry sand and
gravel, a significant increase in haul truck traffic and related congestion, noise and air quality
hazards should be expected at the proposed Mueller South expansion area.
V. Unlimited Hours of Operation. The Applicant is requesting that operations be allowed to
extend from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM Monday through Saturday "exceot in the case of unusual
circumstances or in the event of proiects requirin~ ~reater oroduction. and then onlv after
notice to the Department of Community Services." This statement does not bind the
operation to any schedule whatsoever. Also, the Applicant avoids the concept of getting
approval for.-extending operation-hours by simply stating that they will tell someone
(anyone?) at the Department of Community services that they are going to extend hours
without stating that the Department has any authority to restrict their hours of operation. The
Applicant can create the condition of "projects requiring greater production" by simply
reducing or stopping production at other local gravel pits. Ifleft unchallenged as written, this
will essentially allow 24 -hour a day, seven days a week operations at the site and, possibly at
the associated Quarry, since they could essentially be easily interpreted as parts of the same
mining operation.
W. Increased Truck Traffic Pollution. Increased haul truck traffic to the northern portion of the
site will substantially and adversely affect the vehicular traffic flow in the area. The area is
already overwhelmed with haulage trucks, especially during rush hour in the morning and at
around 4:00 PM. This is due to the reality of cyclical haulage. Truck drivers typically get
paid based upon the number of haulage cycles they can get in to an aggregate producer over
the course of a typical work day. Therefore, there is a financial incentive to be the first one in
line at the quarry when it opens at 7:00AM and the last one to get loaded while still leaving
time to take the loaded material to the job site unload it and get on the road home by 5:00.
This makes 4:00 PM an optimum and highly congested time in and around a quarry
operation. These typical high congestion hours for rock haul trucks also corresponds almost
precisely the same time that all the school busses and "student drivers" are going to or getting
out of school. It is quite obviously an accident waiting to happen and will only get worse if
the proposed special use status is granted.
X. Hazards. of Mining: Death. As a bedroom community encircles the proposed mine
expansion, it becomes more apparent that the very harsh and unforgiving world of explosives
and heavy equipment and children playing in their back yard are not compatible adjacent land
uses. Recent news articles identify deaths due to fly rock from explosives at quarry sites.
One individual was nearly 1,000 feet away from the mine face when he was killed. He was
the mining company's Certified Blaster.
- 7 -
u
u
u
Y.
No Lack of Raw Material. The same limestone deposits that are mined at the 96th Street
quarry underlie substantially all of Hamilton and Marion Counties. Additionally, the
Applicant controls many alternative sand and grave deposits along the very significant,
essentially continuous sand and gravel deposits that follow the historic White River Valley
from Indianapolis through Noblesville and beyond. The Applicant's web site states that they
have 250 actively producing mine sites in numerous states and countries. They cannot then
realistically claim financial hardship if they are unable to expand at the current mine site.
The 40 years that the mine has already been producing has allowed this quarry to be a
significant producer and a primary producer for north-side development.
Z. Underground Mining and Future Subsidence. The Applicant's underground mining activity
may already be leaving a legacy of potential mine subsidence especially since they are
essentially un-regulated in this endeavor. It may take fifty or one hundred years for
subsidence to show its face in the impacted areas, but nature abhors a void and will strive to
fill it and rebalance the resultant earth stresses as quickly as possible.
Criteria for Approval /Reiection of Applications for Special Use Determination.
"Carmel/Clay Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 21: Special Uses & Special Exceptions" identifies
criteria for accepting or rejecting an application for modifYing a previously zoned area for special
use. Based on our observations noted above, it is our opinion that the application prepared by Martin
Marietta Materials, Inc and dated December 13, 2002 ("Application") does not provide sufficient
data for the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") to formulate an informed opinion necessary to rule on
this Application. The questions presented in the "Special Use Application Form" are intended to
provide the Applicant a structured forum for presenting his/her supporting arguments and facts
needed by the BZA to measure the appropriateness of the Application and to weigh the relative
impacts on the community if they decide in favor of the Application request and allow the requested
zoning modifications. The regulatory criteria (presented below in bold text) are as follows:
21.04 Basis of Board Approval or Reiection
21.04.01 Special Use Decisions. The Board, in approving or rejecting a Special Use
application, shall base its decision upon the following factors as they
relate to the above listed items (Section 21.03) concerning the proposed
Special Use.
1. The particular physical suitability of the premises in question for the
proposed Special Use.
- 8 -
o
2. The economic factors related to the proposed Special Use, such as
cost/benefit to the community and its anticipated effect on surrounding
property values.
3. The social/neighborhood factors related to the proposed Special Use, such
as compatibility with existing uses and those permitted under current.
zoning in the vicinity of the premises under consideration and how the
proposed Special Use will affect neighborhood integrity.
4. The adequacy and availability of water, sewage and storm drainage
facilities and police and fire protection.
5. The effects of the proposed Special Use on vehicular and pedestrian
traffic in and around the premises upon which the Special Use in
proposed.
We believe that the materials included in the Application and all Supplements, together with the
testimony that is likely to be presented at the hearing on this matter, will provide adequate basis for the
Board of Zoning Appeals to find that the Applicant has failed to satisfy the above criteria and that,
therefore, the Application should be denied.
Owe appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this interesting project and look forward to
discussing our findings with you in greater detail.
Very Truly Yours,
EnviRESTORE Engineering, LLP
J~ H. G~/4
John H. Gasper, MS Engineering of Mines, P.E.
Principal Engineer, President
o
- 9 -
Q
Q
The Wittman Report
()
u
WHPA
Assessment of the Effects of Proposed Mine Expansion
at the South Mueller Property on Public Water Supply
Wells near Carmel, Indiana
30th June 2004
u
Prepared by
Wittman Hydro Planning Associates, Inc.
Bloomington, Indiana
u
o
Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Summary of findings
1
6
2 Hydrogeologic setting
2.1 Geology.......................
2.1.1 Outwash along the White River . . . . . .
2.1.2 Confined sand and gravel intertill aquifers
2.1.3 Bedrock aquifer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Hydrology......................
2.2.1 Surface water and groundwater interactions
2.2.2 Potentiometric data . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
7
8
9
10
10
11
11
o
3 Model development
3.1 Model code selection
3.2 Aquifer conceptualization .
3.3 Regional boundary conditions
3.4 Local boundary conditions . . . . .
3.5 Representing mine operations in the model.
3.6 Potentiometric head observations . . . . . .
11
11
12
13
17
17
19
"Current" scenario
20
20
23
26
28
28
31
31
4 Results
4.1 Model calibration . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Analysis of parameter uncertainty
4.3 Reduced recharge analysis
4.4 Scenarios and results . . .
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
"South Mueller Active" scenario .
"Post Mining" scenario .
5 Conclusions
36
References
38
u
o
List of Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 13
14
15
16
17
Area of interest in Hamilton County, Indiana. .....
Pumping in the City of Carmel wells from 1988-2002.
Site location map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plan view of the relationships between conceptual aquifer domains.
Conceptual model cross section. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Layout of wells and line sinks in the regional model. ........
Aquifer domains and local boundary conditions for the current conditions
near Carmel Plant 4. ...................
Results of calibration and best-fit potentiometric surface.
Summary calibration statistics from GFLOW. . . . . . .
Determination of a composite capture zone. . . . . . . .
Former gravel pit ponds that contribute water to the Plant 4 wellfield, with
identifying names.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Modeled potentiometric surface an composite 5-year capture zone for the
current conditions. ..............................
Current operations for "reduce-recharge" conditions. ............
Modeled potentiometric surface an composite 5-year capture zone for the
current conditions with Well 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32
Modeled potentiometric surface an composite 5-year capture zone when the
South Mueller property is actively mined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
Change in heads between current conditions and those when the South
Mueller property is actively mined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34
Results for "reduced-recharge" conditions when the South Mueller property
is actively mined. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35
List of Tables
u
1
Annual production well data for the Plant 4 Well Field (All data reported in
million gallons per year). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Aquifer classification scheme for conceptual model. . . . . . . . . . . . ., 14
Parameters for "best-fit" model. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 22
Water levels in Ponds NW and SW (source: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.). 27
2
3
4
11
2
3
5
14
15
16
18
21
22
24
25
29
30
Q
1 Introduction
Q
Cannel's municipal drinking water is currently supplied by approximately 20 production
wells, most of which are located within a mile of the White River in south central Hamilton
County, Indiana (Figure 1). Some of the wells have been in operation since before 1960
but most of the production comes from the most recent additions to the system at Plants 4
and 5. Most of the wells are screened in sand and gravel along the edge of a thick outwash
aquifer that roughly coincides with the flood plain of the White River. The wells vary in
both depth and yield.
In order to satisfy the pace of residential growth in the area the annual production of
the four water plants nearly doubled between 1997 and ~~2 (Figure 2). Today, Cannel's
average annual production (2000-2003) is approximatel~million gallons per day (MGD)
with Plant 4 pumping and average of 0.7 MGD (Table 1). It is expected that water use
will continue to increase rapidly in the future; for example, the proposed annexation of
land outside the current corporate boundary would greatly expand the demand for drinking
water.
Martin Marietta Minerals, Inc. has operated gravel pits and aggregate mines along the
southern border of Hamilton County for decades. In the area South of 106th street there are
several abandoned pits and ponds as well as a large open pit limestone mine. As growth in
the area continues there is increasing demand for gravel and aggregate for roads, bridges,
and buildings. Until recently, these operations have coexisted near the water wells without
any conflict. However, in order to increase production Martin Marietta has proposed an
expansion of its current operations. In their proposal they outline a plan to excavate the
gravel above the bedrock surface and then to mine into the bedrock surface as they have
done in their existing pit. In addition, they are planning to open sand and gravel pits at new
locations over a period of years to satisfy the growing demand for aggregate.
There are separate applications for expansion at two propertie~: the North Mueller prop-
erty, which includes the area north of 106th street between Hazel Dell Parkway and Gray
Road, and the South Mueller property which is located just south of l06th Street between
Hazel Dell Parkway and Gray Road (Figure 3). The proposed mining at North Mueller
would include some additional removal of sand and gravel as well as new underground
limestone aggregate mining. The proposed mining at the South Mueller property would be
done in stages. The first stage would be the removal of the sand and gravel while water
removal occurs along the edges. The next phase is to expand the boundaries of the existing
open pit to the North to serve the North Indianapolis Plant.
As Carmel's role as a regional drinking water supplier grows, it is critical that the city
'-.)
u
u
+
2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles
1"""'- ,
Figure 1: Area of interest in Hamilton County, Indiana.
u
2
u
3000
en 2000
c:
.2
(ii
CJ
c:
0
1500
~
-
U C>
c:
"a.
E
::l
Q. 1000
u
3
2500
500
o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Figure 2: Pumping in the City of Carmel wells from] 988-2002.
c
c
c
Well 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Number
10 102.94 206.23 226.40 223.85 135.71 181.69 190.12 61.01 24.59 182.31 175.85 273.57 217.26 212.47 124.82
11 88.35 206.23 154.67 63.36 64.65 65.24 95.98 42.32 40.25 26.06 142.73 97.95 11.79 29.97 30.86
12 ~ ~ ~ ZUZ ~ ~ M.ZQ au.a ~ ~ ~ JW ~ ~ ~
Annual
Total 285.17 516.61 453.39 359.08 284.32 311.98 340.80 135.26 122.33 232.30 i 387.71 409.03 234.84 302.15 219.70
Average Annual Production 306.31
Table 1: Annual production well data for the Plant 4 Well Field (All data reported in million gallons per year).
~
u
5
u
+
.~~~~.
"1'"''
........
'!:=::!'
0.1 0
~-=-
0.1
0.2 Miles
WiHmon Hydro Planning Associates
'''.<.r.o-" F~:<l.,",,~ "'-3'n^<;''::,,:.tJ.)~
D
o
LEGEND
Roads
Mining Gravel Pits
Hydrology
u
Figure 3: Site location map.
()
protects the aquifers from any deterioration in yield. This report was written to answer an
important question raised by the recent growth in the area: Will the proposed new mining
activity affect Carmel's drinking water supply? How much do these two activities conflict
with one another and how compatible are they?
We have used groundwater models to investigate these issues. The models that include
regional boundary conditions and flow in the unconsolidated aquifers, with local refinement
in the vicinity of the proposed mining works. Our analysis provided information about the
marginal change of the new mines that could alter conditions at the closest drinking water
treatment plant (Plant 4). This analysis was done with data provided by the City about the
configuration of the gravel deposits in the subsurface, information provided by the Indi-
ana Department of Natural Resources from domestic well logs, and standard groundwater
modeling tools. The effects of mining operations and reduced recharge were considered
together to better understand unknown future conditions.
This study is part of a larger ongoing water supply planning effort being conducted by
the Utility that includes subsurface data collection and organization, wellhead protection
planning, and water supply expansion planning.
()
1.1 Summary of findings
There is no single index of the "effects of mining" that captures all of the changes that could
take place once the proposed excavations are underway. Instead, we considered two types
of impacts: changes in water levels in the aquifer near the Plant 4 well field, and changes in
the source water pumped by the well field. The first of these is an indicator of the reduction
in yield that results from the competition between the drinking water wells and around the
mine pits. We examined impacts both during and after mining.
. Additional mining could reduce groundwater levels at the Plant 4 well field by about
2 - 3 ft while the mines are active. The amount of water pumped by a well is roughly
proportional to the drawdown in tOr.; well. Since the original pumping tests showed
about 16ft of drawdown when the wells were pumped at capacity and the modeling
predicts an additional 2 - 3 ft of decline, this translates to roughly 15% reduction in
total wellfield capacity during mining.
. In the 20 years that the proposed mines are active there would be an increase in the
amount of drinking water that comes from abandoned gravel pits and ponds. Cur-
rently we estimate that approximately one-half of the water pumped at the Plant 4
()
6
u
well field had been in a pit or pond within the last five years. While the mines are
active this will increase to more than 70% of all the water in the well field.
. With conditions of reduced recharge, the effects of the proposed mining will be to
decrease water levels by 3 ft compared to reduced recharge under current conditions.
With reduced recharge there are changes in water use and stage along the river that
may alter the actual conditions at the well field. This is a result of reductions in
regional flow from the till aquifers west of Plant 4 and the increasing importance of
the White River.
2 Hydrogeologic setting
According to the Hydrogeologic Atlas of Aquifers in Indiana [Fenelon and Bobay, 1994]
aquifers in the West Fork White River basin are categorized as follows:
1. thick outwash adjacent to major rivers
2. thin outwash aquifers in thick glacial till
u
3. discontinuous sand and gravel in thin glacial till
4. limestone in bedrock covered by variable layers of till (northwest of Carmel, Indiana)
The well fields developed by Carmel Utilities in Hamilton County are typical of commu-
nity well fields in central Indiana. Carmel's well fields are located in thicker portions of
the sand-and-gravel aquifer west of the West Fork (White River). The wide outwash plains
along the White River have relatively large recharge rates due to the highly-permeable sur-
ficial deposits and the low, flat-lying landscape. Under natural conditions, recharge into the
thick outwash aquifer leaves as "baseftow" in the perennial streams. Part of the water, how-
ever, is intercepted by the Carmel wells and is used for drinking water supplies. In some
cases, wells may even induce aquifer recharge from the White River or its tributaries. The
interactions between surface water and groundwater is affected by the pumping rates of the
wells, the hydraulic properties of the river bed, the distance between the wells and the river,
and other factors, including of past and present mining activities.
2.1 Geology
Hamilton County is in the central part of the glaciated portion of Indiana, near the center of
the White River basin. The thickness of unconsolidated deposits varies from less than 20 ft
u
7
u
to over 500ft [Gray, 1983]. Beneath the unconsolidated section, the bedrock dips towards
the Illinois Basin. The bedrock underlying most of the unconsolidated section in the study
area is Silurian-Devonian aged carbonate rock. The thickness of the bedrock increases to
the west. As described above, the two water resource aquifers tapped by high capacity wells
in Hamilton County are; 1) outwash deposits along the larger streams, and 2) thin outwash
layers in the till.
2.1.1 Outwash along the White River
u
The White River outwash was deposited by rapidly moving meltwater during the retreat of
continental glaciers at the end of the last Ice Age. In Hamilton County the deposits are in
a 1 - 3 mi wide channel of coarse sand and gravel in an irregularly-shaped valley, roughly
coinciding with the West Fork White River flood plain. Typically, the thick outwash aquifer
is overlain by 5 - 10ft of clayey material and may extend to depths of 110ft below grade.
Outwash aquifer deposits range from fine sands to coarse gravel to cobbles but primar-
ily consist of well sorted, coarse-grained sand and gravel [Jones and Henry, 1994]. Thick
outwash aquifer deposits also exist west of the river near Martin Marietta's operations.
The deposits used by the city wells are ideal as a water supply for two reasons: 1) the
gravel and sand have a high transmissivity, allowing high flows towards the wells, and 2)
water supply wells situated near a perennial stream can "induce" recharge from the stream
into the aquifer, assuring a more reliable water supply during times of drought and reduced
recharge.
The aquifer varies in thickness and extent within the Study Area. Based on Carmel
Utilities test hole and production well data, the thickness of the sand and gravel ranges from
5 - 100ft. Within the model area of detail, the average thickness is 80 ft. The gravel thins
both east and west of the pre-glacial bedrock valley trough and may be absent, particularly
in areas where subsurface bedrock highs exist. While unconfined conditions prevail in the
thick outwash aquifer, semi-confined to confined conditions do occur where surficial clay
layers and/or significant subsurface clay layers are present.
The hydraulic conductivity (K) of the outwash along the West Fork has been estimated
at over 340 it / d in some areas based on pump test results [Bailey and Imbrigiotta, 1982].
The saturated thickness of the outwash varies between 50 - 120 ft in the region. The trans-
missivity of the aquifer (defined as the product of hydraulic conductivity and saturated
thickness) is highest where the aquifer is thickest west of the river along l06th Ave. in
southern Hamilton County [Cable et aI., 1971]. Previous analyses by the USGS have sug-
gested that in Hamilton County this aquifer is capable of producing 30MGD of water with
u
8
u
limited effect on regional water levels.
Arihood [1982] reports a range of K values for the thick outwash aquifer (based on
aquifer material) to be from 40 - 415ft/d with corresponding values for T ranging from
1,000 - 28,000 ft2 / d. Based on aquifer test pumping results from those Carmel production
wells that are completed in the thick outwash aquifer, estimated K values range from 191-
865 ft / d corresponding to T values from 17,500 - 38,000 ft2 / d [WHPA, 2003]. While the
range for K and T in this aquifer can be highly variable, typical values for K and T range
from 200 - 300ft/d and 16,000 - 24,000ft2 /d, respectively.
This aquifer is recharged by precipitation and by inflow from intertill aquifers east and
west along the perimeter. Water budget studies done by the USGS suggest that infiltration
rates into the outwash system along the White River may be up to 12in/yr [Meyer, 1979].
In addition to direct areal recharge into the outwash, the aquifer receives water along the
perimeter from the confined intertill aquifers discharging towards the White River.
2.1.2 Confined sand and gravel intertill aquifers
u
Further away from the river, wells are often situated in sand and gravel deposits buried
within the glacial till. These intertill aquifers are often discontinuous and, beyond the City
of Carmel geodata archive, they have not been mapped at a useful scale. The hydrogeologic
investigations done by the city, along with a more recent mapping effort conducted by
the Indiana Geological Survey, have provided substantial information about these systems
[Brown et aI., 1995]. The thicker unconsolidated deposits almost always include poorly
connected layers of sand and gravel, which together may form a series of partially connected
till aquifers. The distribution of these intertill aquifers were further evaluated by direct
analysis of the well log records from the area. Where present, thin outwash aquifers within
the till are confined and are commonly relatively thin (average thicknesses range from 5-
20 it). In some parts of the study area there is no significant transmissivity above bedrock.
However, the data indicates that in the thicker unconsolidated section the till often includes
fairly continuous sand and gravel layers.
In general, K values reported for glacial till range from 10-7 - 25 ft / d [Driscoll, 1986]
while the transmissivity of the interbedded thin outwash aquifers that occur within the till
are typically much higher. It is important to remember that these more permeable sand and
gravel layers may be regionally continuous and locally variable. Previous work in the area
indicates that there are several "zones," including the average or "regional" value of K for
the intertill aquifer, that account for transmissivity of both glacial till and discontinuous,
interbedded sand and gravel.
u
9
u
Arihood [1982] reports a range of K values for the confined interbedded thin out-
wash aquifers in Hamilton County to be from 200 - 433 ft / d . Assuming average aquifer
thicknesses ranging from 5 - 20 f t, corresponding values for transmissivity (T) is between
1000 - 8660 ft2 / d. Where multiple interbedded outwash aquifers are present within the till
at any given location, the combined T over the entire section will be larger.
2.1.3 Bedrock aquifer
u
In comparison to the thick outwash and intertill aquifers, the bedrock aquifer is present
throughout the model area but infrequently used as a groundwater resource because suf-
ficient groundwater supplies are usually encountered within the unconsolidated deposits.
Based on well log data, the bedrock is occasionally in direct contact with overlying out-
wash deposits but may also be separated from the overlying outwash by relatively thin clay
layers (till). In isolated areas, the thickness of the overlying till approaches 50ft.
Within the bedrock, well drillers report some variability of hardness, fracturing, and
solution features but overall, it is relatively impermeable and does not appear to be an im-
portant water resource aquifer [Gillis, 1976]. Martin Marietta's rock quarry near 96th Street
and Hazel Dell has been excavated approximately 140ft into the limestone and beneath
approximately 30 - 35 ft of overlying outwash sands and gravel. Quarry operators report
little if any seepage of groundwater from the limestone [Gillis, 1976]. For the purpose of
this study, groundwater flow in the bedrock formations is negligible.
2.2 Hydrology
Of the 37 in of precipitation that that fall each year in Hamilton County, about 12in/yr
(35%) flow directly into surface waters. The remaining water is returned to the atmosphere
as evaporation and transpiration or infiltrates the ground and becomes groundwater.
The perennial streams near the wen field have their highest average flows in the spring,
and seasonal low flow often occurs in the late fall or early winter. USGS stream flow records
indicate that in an of the streams, spring low flow (from March through May) is about two
times the low flows observed between December and February [Fenelon and Bobay, 1994].
Stream flow is composed of groundwater that is discharging from aquifers and more recent
water that is draining off the land surface during and immediately following precipitation
events.
It has been estimated that, over the entire basin, groundwater discharge into the White
River (also referred to as base flow) is about 4inches/year or ~ of the total stream flow
u
10
u
[Wittman and Haitjema, 1995]. In the study region, the recharge rate in the tills will be
higher than the basin average, while recharge rates in upland tills will be lower.
2.2.1 Surface water and groundwater interactions
The degree of hydraulic connection between surface streams and groundwater can have an
important effect on the source areas for wells and the well yields. There have been several
studies of the hydraulic connection between the thin outwash aquifers and the streams south
of the study area in Marion County [Meyer, 1979, Saul and Robinson, 1989]. The general
conclusion of these investigations is that the connection may vary locally but where the
aquifer is composed of coarse sand and gravel, there is little resistance between the White
River and the alluvial aquifer.
2.2.2 Potentiometric data
u
The water levels in the aquifers result from the hydraulic properties of each aquifer, the
pumping rates of the wells, recharge rates (or leakage rates) into or out of the system, and
the location of boundary conditions within the system. The water levels in each of the
aquifers also varies with time. During prolonged drought (such as the drought experienced
in early 1960s) annual maximum water levels declined in observation wells throughout
Hamilton County [Meyer et aI., 1975]. According to the rating curve for the White River at
Nova, the stage during a major drought is 7 - 9 ft lower than the average stage.
No water level measurements were made specifically for this report. Instead, the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources water well records and water levels reported by Martin
Marietta were used as the calibration targets for flow modeling.
3 Model development
This section describes the development of the regional and local model, the conceptual
model that was used, the code used, and the calibration data.
3.1 Model code selection
The analytic element model (AEM) GFLOW was used because:
1. It is suitable for modeling large domains
2. It can model base flow in surface water
u
11
u
3. It can model large transmissivity contrasts accurately, e.g. at gravel pits.
A complete discussion of the theory of the analytic element method can be found in Strack
[1989] and a discussion of the practical aspects of modeling with the AEM technique is
found in Haitjema [1995].
Analytic element models do not discretize the aquifer into a grid or mesh. Instead the
hydrologist discretizes the surface water features and defines domains of the aquifer with
similar hydraulic properties. The modeling technique forces the hydrologist to use distant
boundary conditions to generate flow in the near-field; this makes the AEM uniquely well
suited to modeling flow at large scales [de Lange, 1991, de Lange, 1996]. Unlike numerical
models the analytic element method allows the user to analytically calculate potentiometric
heads and groundwater fluxes at any point in the domain.
In AEM models, common practice is to embed regions with highly-detailed elements
in a less-detailed regional model. We have followed this approach.
3.2 Aquifer conceptualization
u
The conceptual model used for the groundwater flow modeling assumes a single aquifer
with an impermeable horizontal base, representing the regional unconsolidated aquifers.
In the conceptual model, the aquifers are specified in 5 categories, as shown in Figures 4
and 5, and described in Table 2. When the model was constructed in GFLOW, the various
domains were given transmissivity values such that the model matches the calibration data.
The classification scheme is described in detail below:
Regional intertill aquifer More-or-Iess connected sand and gravel deposits within thicker
surficial clay till formations. Typically, the overall transmissivity and recharge rates
are low.
Thin outwash aquifer Sand and gravel in the floodplain of the White River that is buried
by 10 it or more of clay till. Intermediate values of transmissivity and recharge rate
are expected.
Thick outwash aquifer Localized, thick gravel formations in the floodplain of the White
River; may be coincident with the location of the river. High values of transmissivity
and recharge rate are expected.
Bedrock hills Localized regions within the floodplain of the White River where the bedrock
elevation is much higher than elsewhere in the floodplain. These bedrock hills can cut
u
12
u
off much of the permeable unconsolidated deposits. These are simulated as domains
of very low transmissivity and low recharge.
Mine pit ponds Inactive gravel operations that have filled with water. These have effec-
tively infinite transmissivity and high recharge. For the purpose of the model, a trans-
missivity value that is two orders of magnitude (100 x) the outwash transmissivity
was used.
In the model, domains of varying transmissivity and recharge were created to simulate the
various aquifer types (Figure 7).
3.3 Regional boundary conditions
u
The approach used in this investigation was to first model regional flow and then to add
detail near the Martin Marietta facilities. The local model used to evaluate impact was
constructed by adding local detail to the regional flow model. Consequently, the local
model contained the information obtained while modeling the regional system. The regional
model represented boundary conditions such as rivers and streams in a coarse manner, while
the aquifer system was modeled as a single, hydraulically conducting layer with locally
varying transmissivity (Figure 6). The conceptual geologic model used for the regional
analysis was based on our earlier modeling work done in central Indiana and water re-
source investigations conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. This was all supplemented
by our own analyses of well log information obtained through the Indiana Department
of Natural Resources [Bailey and Imbrigiotta, 1982, Gray and Hartke, 1989, IDNR, 1976,
Meyer et aI., 1975, Meyer, 1979, Smith, 1983].
The regional model includes all or parts of four counties in central Indiana: Hamil-
ton, Marion, Hendricks, and Hancock counties. Also included were the significant aquifer
properties, major rivers and streams, and all of the high capacity wells registered in the area.
The boundary conditions in an analytic element model are not perimeter conditions
imposed by the modeler around a finite grid domain. Instead, the boundary conditions
are natural hydrologic features, such as streams and lakes, that control flow in the aquifer.
These surface water features are provided as line-sink elements with specified heads (Figure
6). The far-field features were modeled with few, long line sinks. The line sinks used to
model distant rivers do not include the effects of entry resistance along streams. It is not
appropriate to perform detailed analyses in the far field; these elements are used only to
ensure appropriate flow conditions at the perimeter of the study domain.
u
13
u
u
intertill aquifer
Figure 4: Plan view of the relationships between conceptual aquifer domains.
Aquifer type Transmissivity Recharge
Regional intertill Low Low
Thin outwash Medium Medium
Thick outwash High High
Bedrock hills Low Low
Gravel pit ponds 00 High
Table 2: Aquifer classification scheme for conceptual model.
u
14
o
u
<-
c>>
.~
O!.
c>>
u
translating conceptual model
~ ~
~
Upland Till (low Ncharge) high NCharge
10. 1NnsmissiYi1y. confined
intertill aquifer
H
high T
r-- confined ouiwash aquifer --1
Figure 5: Conceptual model cross section.
u
15
o
. Clinton
Tipton
o
~
/. I
~
Madison
Boone
l' Hancock
Hendricks
I
I
_~___~____J~_
+
}
\
-1-- -~~
'.'
5 Miles I
1 I
It.~.. Wollman Hydra Planning Associates I
:::~~~\~ '..,~ F.,:,_'_~~ '~-n -" ';:<1:,0":. I
I '!:==~!' I
L_______________---.l__~
5
o
LEGEND
.
Model Wells
Model Linesinks
Hydrology
County boundary
N
IV
CJ
Figure 6: Layout of wells and line sinks in the regional model.
o
16
o
3.4 Local boundary conditions
o
The local model was used to assess both existing and future hydraulic conditions associ-
ated with groundwater pumping in the Carmel area. Specifically, the area of detail includes
Carmel Utilities Plant 4 Well Field and Martin Marietta's existing and proposed sand and
gravel and limestone mining operations in Carmel. The local model contains the informa-
tion obtained from modeling the regional system but also provides details that incorporate
calibration head points, pumping, mine operation, variable recharge rates and transmissiv-
ity, and more detailed surface water features that include streams with variable resistance
and quarry lakes.
Since 1988, the IDNR Division of Water has required all surface water and groundwater
withdrawal facilities within the state that have a pumping capacity of 70 gpm or greater to
record and submit annual production data. This includes municipal, commercial, institu-
tional, industrial, geothermal, and irrigation facilities as well as mining operations. Since
significant pumping of an aquifer may influence both local and regional groundwater flow, a
review of registered high-capacity groundwater withdrawal facilities located within Hamil-
ton County was performed. The hydraulic significance of these pumping facilities that
include Carmel Utilities' twenty production wells were evaluated in the computer model
using well elements. For the pumping rate, an average of Carmel's pumping from 1990-
2002 was calculated.
Martin Marietta reports that it currently pumps approximately 6.4 million gallons per
day (MGD) at the Indianapolis North Plant. This total includes inflow from the adjacent
thin outwash aquifer, surface runoff and any seepage from the bedrock aquifer. Of this
total, approximately 4.8MGD is estimated to be from groundwater inflow. Removal of
water at the mining operations of the aquifer will be simulated in the computer model using
a high conductivity inhomogeneity and a single line-sink with a specified head similar to
the bedrock mine floor elevation. By using this strategy, the line-sink element will tell how
much water is removed at the mine.
In the analysis of uncertainty, hydraulic parameters (recharge and hydraulic conductiv-
ity) were varied to achieve a calibrated model (sensitivity analysis). In all cases, aquifer
porosity was modeled at 20%, and the aquifer thickness was assumed to be 80 feet.
3.5 Representing mine operations in the model
In the local model, it is necessary to represent two hydrologic features that result from
mining operation: (1) active mine pits; and (2) inactive pits that have filled with water.
()
17
Q
18
Q
+
0.3
o
.~~~~.
'r,u."
I.......
.......11I
~.......
Wittmcn Hydro Planning Associates
.~-~, r~."'~; I.~.f'''nl''''l ',"""- I"",,~
I
0.3 Miles I
I
L
lit
N
LEGH.m
Inhomogeneities
h!.;""~ Mining ponds
d Thick outwash
~ ~~~~~~~~~
r~ Intertill
Carmel wells
Linesinks
Hydrology
Roads
Figure 7: Aquifer domains and local boundary conditions for the current conditions near
Carmel Plant 4.
Q
u
These were simulated as follows:
Active mining operations It was assumed that the potentiometric surface at the edge of
the mine is held at the top of the bedrock by perimeter drains (as it is at the existing
Martin Marietta quarry pit). In this case, the pit is modeled using line-sink elements
with their head specified at the bedrock elevation. Since the model is based on con-
stant transmissivity in each domain, it is necessary to specify an entry resistance to
account for the thinning of the potentiometric surface where flow is unconfined near
the perimeter drains, or for a seepage face. The resistance was determined as part of
model calibration.
u
Inactive gravel pits These are modeled as open water, using inhomogeneity domains with
very high transmissivities (see above). In the post-mining model runs, the current
quarry pit and the proposed pit at the South Mueller property were modeled in this
manner.
In addition, the inactive gravel pit that receives water pumped from the Martin Ma-
rietta quarry pit perimeter drain will lose some water to the aquifer and the remain-
der will overflow into Blue Woods Creek. This is modeled by adding a quantity of
recharge to that pit in the model.
3.6
Potentiometric head observations
Static water levels utilized for calibrating the model were selected from existing measure-
ments reported on IDNR well logs and a number of Carmel Utilities' test well logs. Vari-
ations in the reported static water levels at any location can be attributed to one or any
combination of the following: seasonal fluctuations, long term climatic variations, different
aquifers, transient pumping conditions and the reporting of erroneous well locations and/or
static water levels by drillers. To ensure that appropriate data were used for calibration, we
used these rules:
. Only the Indiana Geological Survey (IGS) filtered IDNR database was used for IDNR
well locations. IGS has provided quality control checks on their filtered database to
reduce errors.
. Only wells completed since January I, 1998.
. Only wells completed with depths in the range of 40 - 100ft.
. Static water levels from wells completed in the bedrock aquifer were removed.
u
19
o
4 Results
This section describes the approaches used to determine the effects of the proposed mine
expansion. In particular, we discuss the calibration of the model to potentiometric head
data, the scenarios used to evaluate effects, and the examination of uncertainty related to
model parameters.
4.1 Model calibration
In the model, there were several parameters that could be adjusted as part of model calibra-
tion:
. Transmissivity and recharge rates in the regional intertill aquifer, buried sand-and-
gravel aquifer, thick outwash aquifer, and bedrock hills
. Entry resistance in surface waters
. Entry resistance for the perimeter drain at the current Martin Marietta quarry pit
o
. Amount of water infiltrated into the inactive gravel pit where water pumped from the
Martin Marietta perimeter drain is disposed.
For calibration purposes, the Carmel Plant 4 wells were given pumping rates consistent
with their operation in 1993 (a representative year in the time period of available water
level data). Because the modeling analysis is intended to show differences arising from the
proposed mine operation, these pumping rates were used throughout the modeling analysis,
As described above, the regional model was calibrated to match well with observed
heads from IDNR water well data that have been filtered for quality by the Indiana Geolog-
ical Survey. In addition, local head observations were derived from the potentiometric map
provided by Martin Marietta that was developed from their own monitoring wells. One flux
calibration value was also available: the estimate that 4.8MGD of groundwater is pumped
from the perimeter drain at the existing quarry pit.
The parameter values that were determined during calibration of the model (matching
both regional and local observations) are shown in Table 3.
The spatial distribution of calibration error is shown in Figure 8. Summary statistics
for the calibration results are shown in Figure 9. The "best-fit" modeled inflow into the
existing perimeter drain was 4.78MGD.
u
20
2]
u
u
I
I
1+
I
I
I
0.2 0 0.2 0.4 Miles
-----
Calibration error
(model head-obs. head)
. <-10
... -10--5
. -5-0
'" 0 - 5
b. 5 - 10
.6.. >10
LEGEND
::7:~\.. ~~_~_n'~~Q~~ Asso<iates
........
I!::::!"
. Carmel wells
N Potentiometric contours
Roads
Rivers
D Hamilton County
Figure 8: Results of calibration and best-fit potentiometlic sUlface.
u
Q
22
Parameter
Value(s)
Intertill aquifer Transmissivity 16ooft2/d
Intertill aquifer recharge rate 2.5 in/yr
Buried sand-and-gravel transmissivity 56ooft2/d
Buried sand-and-gravel recharge rate 7.5in/yr
Outwash transmissivity 24000ft2/d
Outwash recharge rate lOin/yr
Resistance of surface waters Ranged from 1- lood
Infiltration at disposal pit 2.2MGD
Resistance of perimeter drain 2d
Dbrav-'arD
b':l ' .
Q
~~.na ~i'T
~ Dr-.:. hu
~on..r-
tole
f.14
r4.; ,_.
t'J.'T
Wd... Dt'_
M-tAmIlU.
DheftOe
Rad~
[I~
SIn III SIr_a!
[I~
~13;_6:
Table 3: Parameters for "best-fit" model.
,.. V_,.,..-- --.-..--..--.... ... ...........- -". -.. .....-.------- _........_......-.--.~.-..-
(t SGatIel'FIot ('"DnU.h~~flIol;
11.
-III
lit
181
)771
J1!H
175.
141
1:11
1.2.
118
11. 121 m -,.0 TtlO ~t 111 i'$) reo 800 111
~t'-:I
II ~ "II
Figure 9: Summary calibration statistics from GFLOW.
Q
u
4.2 Analysis of parameter uncertainty
For each scenario in the analysis (see following sections), a sensitivity analysis for critical
parameters was performed. The following parameters were adjusted:
. Transmissivity of the thin and thick outwash aquifers was raised and lowered by 20%
. Resistance of the White River was reduced by 50%
. Resistance of the modified reach of Blue Woods Creek was reduced by a factor of
toxin the "South Mueller active" scenario only, to examine the possible impact
should the construction of the new creek channel increase communication with the
aquifer.
u
For each scenario, a range of predicted values is provided for each of the indices of impact
(see below).
In addition, a composite capture zone analysis for the Plant 4 wells was performed
for each scenario. The approach used to determine the 5-yearcomposite capture zone is
shown in Figure to. Streamlines were traced back in time from each well for 5 years. The
streamlines for all simulations were superimposed using GIS software, and the composite
capture zone was the digitized manually as the polygon that enclosed all of the streamlines.
Including ponds in capture zone delineations Our model predicts that a large fraction
of the water pumped by the Plant 4 wells comes from the northernmost of three ponds (for
this discussion, we refer to the ponds as "NW", "SE", and "sw" as noted in Figure 11)
just west of the current quarry operation. Since the ponds are hydraulically connected to
varying degrees, this introduces several complex issues for capture zone delineation. We
have taken the conservative approach that if there is a possibility that one of the gravel pits
contributes to the well field, it should be included in the wellfield capture zone. Further-
more, we describe the ultimate sources of waters into the three ponds, for consideration in
wellhead protection planning.
Ponds SW and SE Ponds SW and SE are well connected by culverts, and according to the
data collected by Martin Marietta, the water levels in both ponds are essentially the
same. Water pumped from the collection ditches and other facilities at the quarry
operation is pumped into Pond SW. Particulate matter that is entrained in this water
settles into Pond SW, and the water then moves primarily into Pond SE, from which
it then exits via a culvert under Gray Road into Blue Woods Creek. Although most of
u
23
Q
Q
G
+
LEGEND
0.1
o
0.1 Miles
.~~~~.. ~~~n ~~~ ~Q_nning Associates
..,...., \.= "-~.o_r:;_ "f1 C, ~Yl.J;:r!l;
........
......n
~.....p
e Carmel wells
N Linesinks
N Hydrology
Roads
r--1 Composite
L-...J capture zone
Pathlines
NN Calibration
Low conductivity
N Low transmissivity
High transmissivity
Figure 10: Determination of a composite capture zone.
()
24
I'
I .
l
r-
25
Q
Q
-+
0.2
o
0.2 Miles
,
LEGEND
Gl Carmel wells
Roads
i'!"!, Wittman Hydro Planning Associates
:,1~~~\\ ".a':> ~:~"".,",,>"I.J-f1"~O:"";...I:n;
U.....I
I.......
.11.....
~
~
Hydrology
Figure II: Former gravel pit ponds that contribute water to the Plant 4 welIfield, with
identifying names.
Q
o
the water moves from Pond SW into Pond SE, some also moves into Pond NW (see
below).
Pond NW Pond NW has two sources of water: (1) inflow from Pond SW through culverts
that connect the ponds; and (2) inflow from Blue Woods Creek. Water-level data
for Pond NW and Pond SW (Table 4) indicate that the water level in Pond NW is
usually higher than the level in Pond SW, although in about 10% of the data, the level
in Pond SW is higher. This indicates that water removed from the mining operation
and runoff water in Blue Woods Creek are potential sources of contamination for the
Plant 4 wells.
From a wellhead protection standpoint, all three ponds (NW, SW, and SE) contribute water
to the Plant 4 wells. All potential sources of contamination into the ponds should be con-
sidered as part of the Plant 4 wellhead protection plan, including runoff of lawn chemicals
and spills into Blue Woods Creek, and also potential contaminants entering the pond from
the mining operation.
4.3 Reduced recharge analysis
o
Since little is known about the stage-discharge relationships in the surface streams near
the mine, it is not presently possible to simulate all features of the hydraulics of this system
during a major drought. Indices of impact in this report are derived from the change in water
levels or water leaving the inactive gravel pit and entering a Plant 4 well. Therefore, we have
performed one "reduced recharge" run for each scenario. In each case, the potentiometric
surface and streamlines from the Plant 4 wells are shown for the case that the recharge rates
are reduced to 1/3 of the "best-fit" calibration values.
The reduced-recharge scenarios suggest the effects on the capacity of the Plant 4 well-
field that result from reductions in recharge. Two important factors that can reduce recharge
are natural drought events and urbanization. The model does not include the effects of
drought on major surface water levels (e.g. in the White River), so it under-predicts the ef-
fects oflong-term drought on Plant 4. However, it is likely that short-term (e.g. 1-2 month)
dry periods in summer could reduce recharge (and therefore plant capacity) significantly
for a short time. The issue of urbanization is more long-lasting. As development contin-
ues near the Plant 4 well field, the long-term recharge rate may be significantly reduced by
the presence of homes, streets and parking facilities, with surface water structures handling
runoff and reducing recharge.
u
26
u
Date I Pond NW I Pond SW I
Q
5/22/02 NA 737.22
6/12/02 NA 736.92
8/13/02 NA 736.40
12/16/02 735.24 736.46
2/1 0/03 736.94 736.40
4/8/03 739.13 736.53
6/16/03 737.79 736.88
9/15/03 737.59 737.61
10/15/03 736.99 736.33
11/17/03 736.59 736.53
1/15/04 736.79 736.53
2/17/04 736.79 736.53
3/17/04 736.50 736.50
4/17/04 736.39 736.33
Table 4: Water levels in Ponds NW and SW (source: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.).
u
27
()
4.4 Scenarios and results
Three scenarios were perfonned, corresponding to the following:
Current The current situation
South Mueller Active The South Mueller gravel pit is fully built-out and the water table
drawn down to bedrock.
After Mining The South Mueller pit and the current quarry have been closed; they have
filled with water and become lakes.
The scenarios are discussed below. For the "South Mueller Active" and "After Mining"
scenarios, three indices of impact are provided,
l. Change (in it) for water levels in the currently-existing inactive gravel pit ponds,
2. Change in water level at a point located between the Plant 4 wells (this is related to
the capacity of the wells),
()
3. Fraction of the total water pumped by the Plant 4 wells that travels from the inactive
gravel pit south of the wellfield in less than 5 years.
4.4.1 "Current" scenario
Results for the "Current" scenario are shown in Figure 12. The illustration shows the mod-
eled potentiometric surface based on best-fit model parameters and the composite 5-year
time-of-travel capture zone for the Plant 4 wells. Based on the sensitivity analysis, the
Plant 4 wells receive about I-half (51-55%) of their water from the inactive gravel pit south
of the wellfield. Although time of travel not shown on the figure, it should be noted that the
travel time from the gravel pit to well #12 is less than 1 year.
The reduced recharge run for the current scenario is shown in Figure 13. The model
predicts that the Plant 4 wells receive 68% of their water from the inactive gravel pit south
of the wellfield.
Consideration of the new Well #22
All of the analyses presented here are based on the 1993 "representative year" pumping
rates for the Plant 4 wells. During the summer of 2004, the new Well 22 will be coming
on-line at Plant 4. We have perfonned an additional set of model runs based on current
()
28
29
u
1+
I
I
I
0.2
o
0.2 Miles
LEGEND
u
Ii>>
Carmel wells
I
I.~-
i~'!t, Wittman Hydro Plcnning Associates
,"::H~\\ \'.= p,,;o....--~'1.l-nccc,..,:--b-1::
.'n.."
........
........
N
Linesinks
Roads
Potentiometric contours
o 5- Year capture zone
o Hydrology
Figure 12: Modeled potentiometl;c surface an composite S-year capture zone for the current
conditions.
u
u
u
I
L_
u
+
30
0.2
o
Carmel wells
Potentiometric contours
Reduced recharge pathlines
Hydrology
t4!'~,
::;:~t.,\
........
"IIUII
~...."..
Linesinks
Roads
N
~
Wittman Hydro Planning Associates
\'_=Hco.r:.,""-n"_<;':Y1:..a_t:;
Figure 13: Current operations for "reduce-recharge" conditions.
()
conditions, but adding Well 22. Since no actual pumping data for Well 22 are available,
we assumed that in the "representative" scenario, it would pump the same amount as the
largest well in the previous runs. The composite capture zone and potentiometric head field
is shown in Figure 14.
4.4.2 "South Mueller Active" scenario
u
Results for the "South Mueller Active" scenario are shown in Figure 15. The illustration
shows the modeled potentiometric surface based on best-fit model parameters and the com-
posite 5-year time-of-travel capture zone for the Plant 4 wells. Based on the sensitivity
analysis, the Plant 4 wells receive about 70% (70-71 %) of their water from the inactive
gravel pit south of the well field. Although time of travel not shown on the figure, it should
be noted that the travel time from the gravel pit to well #12 is less than 1 year. The total
amount of water pumped from the quarry pit and the South Mueller pit is about 7.2MGD.
Of this, we reinfiltrated the same fraction as found in the calibrated model at the gravel pit
(3.3MGD), leaving about 3.9MGD (6cfs) in Blue Woods Creek.
The changes between current conditions and those when the South Mueller property is
being actively mined are shown in Figure 16. The most important value is the change in the
water levels in the wellfield: the model predicts a decline of 2.0 - 2.8 ft. This corresponds
to about 10-15% of the capacity reported in the well logs for Plant 4.
When this model is run with a very low resistance in the modified reach of Blue Woods
Creek, the results are quite different. An increased head of 0.3 ft is predicted at the well-
field, and the Plant 4 wells receive 77% of their water from the inactive gravel pit.
The reduced recharge run for the current scenario is shown in Figure 17. The model
predicts that the Plant 4 wells receive 83% of their water from the inactive gravel pit south
of the wellfield.
4.4.3 ''Post Mining" scenario
After surface operations at the South Mueller property are complete, a dry reclamation plan
has been proposed. A network of drains will be incised into the bedrock surface to route
water into the ditches near the current quarry operation. The water will then be pumped into
the ponds west of the quarry. From a modeling perspective, the "post-mining" conditions
do not differ from the.conditions when the South Mueller operations are active. Thus, the
"South Mueller active" scenarios are representative of the post-mining conditions.
u
31
32
Q
Q
+
0.2
o
0.2 Miles
LEGEND
o Carmel wells
i
I
I
L--_
~4!'~,
IliH~~\
......11
........
~III.....
Wittman Hydro. ptonning Associates
\o.=.F".:O_'-""';,-"oG';;n,b-t.;
N
:', /
Linesinks
Roads
D
El
Potentiometric contours
5- Year capture zone
Hydrology
Figure 14: Modeled potentiometric surface an composite 5-year capture zone for the current
conditions with Well 22.
Q
u
u
0.2
0.2 Miles
33
LEGEND
Potentiometric contours
D 5-Year capture zone
l..;,tifj Hydrology
Figure IS: Modeled potentiometric surface an composite S-year capture zone when the
South Mueller property is actively mined.
u
o
.itI!~, Wi dr PI . Ass.oci
1:1nt\\ \'~~,-~.n~';~~:::'9 otes
......'I
u......
.......
,/
34
o
o
+
0.2
o
0.2 Miles
LEGEND
, .~~~~t Wittmcn Hydro f.ltcnning Associates
L ::iiii\\ '.=-F~'O.;.~"1J.~",';:";-O.I"
.....~p
--~---~._-
CD Carmel wells
N Linesinks
/\/ Roads
~~j ~;~;e ~~:~t~~~~:~1
conditions (ft)
~",~-&'I Hydrology
Figure 16: Change in heads between current conditions and those when the South Mueller
property is actively mined.
()
35
()
o
1+
I
I
0.2
o
0.2 Miles
LEGEND
f~~1-:' Wittman Hydro ~cnning Associates
',:i~I" ,'.= f.'~:o~...-" "'I,,-n-, Vn:.r...-t;
......11
III....'
......p
G Carmel wells
N Linesinks
c,.,. Roads
Potentiometric contours
N Reduced recharge pathlines
~"tJi,J!i;j~ Hydrology
Figure I 7: Results for "reduced-recharge" conditions when the South Mueller property IS
actively mined.
o
u
5 Conclusions
There is no single index of the "effects of mining" that captures all of the changes that could
take place once the proposed excavations are underway. Instead, we considered two types
of impacts: changes in water levels in the aquifer near the Plant 4 well field, and changes in
the source water pumped by the we)) field. The first of these is a measure of the reduction
in yield that results from the competition between the drinking water wells and the mining
operations around the active pits. We examined impacts both during and after mining.
. The wellfield is significantly affected by the reinfiltration of water pumped from the
existing Martin Marietta quarry pit. Currently, about 2.2MGD of the 4.8MGD that
is pumped from the ~rains at the quarry pit is reinfiltrated after it is disposed at the
inactive gravel pond. The remaining 2.6MGD (4c/s) is lost from the gravel pit to
Blue Woods Creek.
. The addition of Well 22 to the current conditions increases the size of the Plant 4
welJhead protection area, particularly north and east of the we))field.
u
. Additional mining could reduce groundwater levels at the we)) field by about 2-
3/t while the mines are active. The amount of water pumped by a well is roughly
proportional to the drawdown in the well. Since the original pumping tests showed
about 16/t of drawdown when the wells were pumped at capacity and the modeling
predicts an additional 2 - 3/t of decline, this translates to roughly 15% reduction in
total well field capacity during mining.
. Additional mining at the South Mueller property wiJ) increase the amount of water
pumped from the mine by about 50%.
. In the 20 years that the proposed mines are active there would be an increase in the
amount of drinking water that comes from the pits and ponds. Currently we estimate
that approximately one-half of the water pumped at the Plant 4 well field had been in
a pit or pond within the last five years. While the mines are active this wiJ) increase
to more than 70% of a)) the water in the well field.
. With reduced recharge conditions, the effects of the proposed mining wiJJ be to de-
crease water levels by 3/t compared to reduced recharge under current conditions.
With reduced recharge there are changes in water use and stage along the river that
u
36
u
may alter the actual conditions at the well field. The effects that we predicted are a re-
sult of reductions in regional flow from the till aquifers to the West and the increasing
importance of the White River to the East of the wells.
. If the reconstructed section of Blue Woods creek has a very good connection with the
aquifer, it may be able to supply a significant amount of water to the Plant 4 wells,
even increasing the heads in the aquifer near the well field.
. After mining ceases, the water levels near the wellfield will decline compared to
current conditions as a result of the loss of additional aquifer recharge at the inactive
gravel pit just south of the well field. The amount of water moving from the gravel pit
to the wellfield will be about one-half what it is currently.
. We recommend that a monitoring well program be initiated to evaluate the interaction
between the inactive gravel pits south of the Plant 4 wellfield and the wells. A detailed
monitoring plan is in development and will be submitted in mid-July.
u
()
37
u
References
[Arihood, 1982] Arihood, L. D. (1982). Ground-Water Resources of the Upper White
River Basin, Hamilton and Tipton Counties, Indiana. Water Resources Investigation
Report 82-48, U.S. Geological Survey.
[Bailey and Imbrigiotta, 1982] Bailey, Z. and Imbrigiotta, T. (1982). Ground-Water Re-
sources of the Glacial Outwash along the White River, Johnson and Morgan Counties,
Indiana. Water Resource Investigation 82-4016, U.S. Geological Survey.
[Brown et al., 1995] Brown, S., Ferguson, V., and Flemming, A. (1995). Hydrologic
Framework of Marion County, Indiana. Open File Report 93-5, Indiana Geological
Survey, Environmental Geology Section.
[Cable et aI., 1971] Cable, L. W., Damiel, J., Wolf, R. J., and Tate, C. H. (1971). Water
Resources of the Upper White River Basin, East Central Indiana. Water Supply Paper
1999-C, U.S. Geological Survey.
u
[de Lange, 1991] de Lange, W. (1991). A Groundwater Model of the Netherlands. Techni-
cal Report Note 90.066, The National Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste
Water Treatment.
[de Lange, 1996] de Lange, W. (1996). Groundwater Modeling of Large Domains with
Analytic Elements. Master's thesis.
[Driscoll, 1986] Driscoll, F. G. (1986). Groundwater and Wells. Johnson Screens, second
edition.
[Fenelon and Bobay, 1994] Fenelon, J. and Bobay, K. (1994). Hydrologic Atlas of
Aquifers in Indiana. Water Resource Investigation 92-4142, U.S. Geological Survey.
[Gillis, 1976] Gillis, D. C. (1976). A Model Analysis of Ground-Water Availability Near
Carmel, Indiana. Water Resource Investigation 76-46, U.S. Geological Survey.
[Gray and Hartke, 1989] Gray, H. and Hartke, E. (1989). Geology for Environmental Plan-
ning in Marion County, Indiana. Geological Survey Special Report 47, Indiana Depart-
ment of Natural Resources.
[Gray, 1983] Gray, H. H. (1983). Map of Indiana Showing Thickness of Unconsolidated
Deposits. Misc. Map.
u
38
u
[Haitjema, 1995] Haitjema, H. (1995). Analytic Element Modeling of Groundwater Flow.
Academic Press.
[IDNR,1976] IDNR (1976). Technical Atlas of the Ground-Water Resources of Marion
County, Indiana. Water resource assessment, Indiana Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Water.
[Jones and Henry, 1994] Jones and Henry (1994). Wellhead Protection Area Delineation
Report. Technical report, Carmel Utilities, Carmel, Indiana.
[Lapham, 1981] Lapham, W. W. (1981). Groundwater Resources of the White River Basin,
Madison County, Indiana. Water Resource Investigation Report 81-35, U.S. Geological
Survey.
[Meyer, 1979] Meyer, W. (1979). Geohydrologic Setting of and Seepage from a Water-
Supply Canal, Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. Water Resource Investigation 79-
115, U.S. Geological Survey.
u
[Meyer et aI., 1975] Meyer, W., Reussow, J. P., and Gillis, D. C. (1975). Availability of
Ground Water in Marion County, Indiana. Open File Report 75-312, U.S. Geological
Survey.
[Saul and Robinson, 1989] Saul, M. and Robinson, B. (1989). Streambed Permeability and
Seepage in White River, Marion County, Indiana. Special Project 4, Indiana Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Water.
[Smith, 1983] Smith, B. (1983). Availability of Groundwater from the Outwash Aquifer,
Marion County, Indiana. Water Resource Investigation 83-4144, U.S. Geological Survey.
[Strack, 1989] Strack, O. (1989). Groundwater Mechanics. Prentice Hall.
[WHPA, 2003] WHPA (2003). Phase I wellhead protection plan. Technical report, Carmel
Uti lites, Carmel, Indiana.
[Wittman and Haitjema, 1995] Wittman, J. F. and Haitjema, H. (1995). Delineation of
Wellhead Protection Zones in Marion County - A Report to the Marion County Well
Field Protection Technical Committee. Technical Report 97-E03, IUPUI Center for Ur-
ban Policy and the Environment.
u
39
u
The Dr. Leaps Letter
u
o
7655676210
AUG 02,2004 12:32
7655676210
Page 1
u
Dtlrrelll. LellfJ, PIl. D.
Liccn~cd PTofc~~ion:l1 <..icologisl liNt #51~
Rcgi~lcred IJrofcsslonal H~drogc(Jl(lgisl iAIHI ii~'):;
l1:.RRA AQUA (;etJ.'i(';ence.\~. Inc.
51)3;: f.ooJ..;o/l1 Oril'/!, H'l',~t 1.(?I(~l'f~ltt~. 1.\ -li'JIJ('
I'll 7f>5 _'f'/'.!.';'8 hll"/(;."I-507-0]IO
lerN J11'lu(J'(:'/(f'/('.\!. /1('1
May 27. 2002
Mr. Oavid Ezcll, I':sq
()()S~ Allisonvillc Road
Indianapolis, IN 46220
FAX (317) 257-9412
Dr X,k Ezell'
u
1n this letter. 1 am answering your questions as addressed in your letter of May 20,
2002. In addition.. I am giving you my professional l>pinion anout the situation
and potential problems thm could come about if the l'vlartin-ll\'1ariclla Corp. dot's
indeed mine gravel and/or sand close to or within rhe \-vell.head caplure LOne
surrounding Wells 10, II and 12 althe Gray Street Water Plant.
I have rcvicwed the documents YOl.lsent to me including the Well Head Protection
studies J~x the city uf Carmel from I <)94 and lI'om 2001 by Jones and Ilenry
Engineers. Ltd. I believe them to be rcasonable and as accurclte as the data
allows The IDrM requires delineation ofthc 5-ycar Time or Travel c.tpture
Zone and also likes to see, ifpossihle. a lO-year 7one. However. the 200 I study
only computed the I-year and 5-year zones The boundaries of the capture wne
thm I hav'c addressed in this rep0l1 are those or the 5-year zone
I have also sludied the report of the Schneider Corp. to Martin 1\1arietta about
Schneider's l1ullleric,l! model i ng of t he groundwater flow of the rcg,ion of pla nncd
mining expansion near and over the well-head capture zone of Wells 10, 11 and
12 at the Gray Road Water Plant as well as the map you faxed to me showing
current and proposed areas ormining around the plant area and the capture zone
INTI{(}IH)CTION ANI> RACKGROUND
u
Capture zones are based on averagcs or water-level elevations and pumping rates
.tTH.l may shrink or expand over time. depending upon the variation in pumping
fales, inlerference from wells and discharges outside the zones. and recharge
variatioll due to tluctuations in precipit.ttion. Therefore. mining operations should
not be considered acceptable ir the pit (,,;omes exactly t() the edge of the capture
AUG 02,2004 12:32
7655676210
Page 2
u
zone and Illost celtainly nol if it overlaps th~ capture zone as the proposed
expanded mines will do.
The aquifer illtltt:' area of concern vw'here expansions of surlace mining operations
are planned is an unconfi.,ed aquifer. This mcall~ that thcrc is no truly confining
layer \vith very 10\\1 permeability (aquihmJ) above the aquiter to protect it fi'om
contamination Ii'om the surface. Although there are some layers of 1m\!-
permeability clay and sill within th~ aquifer, they are dbcontinuolls and do nor
otTer complete protection
This aquifer, like most aqLlit~rs allows water to be pUlllp~d limn a distance away
from Ihe wdls. In this case, it comes mostly li"orn the Ilorthwest where the water
table i~ highcr in elevation from a distance or probably two or three miles,
although the 5-year capture 70ne extcnds b~lween 1.5 and 2 miles.
The velocity of water moving through a porous medium, such a!) this sand and
gravd aquifer, is given by Darcy's I.aw, named aller Henri Darcy, a French
enginec.r who discovered it in the middle of the 19'h century:
v - (I/N.) (K) (I), where
u
N" is cllcctivc porosity, K is hydraulic conductivity, and I is the hydraulic
gradient (the slope of the water lable)
The gradient ofo 00.1 is three times larger than the State average orO.OOI (per
fOEr....n and slopes downward from the T1011hwest toward The well Held. It is for
this reason that the capture Lone is :-;omewhat elongated toward the northwest
Ilydraulil~ condlK~tivity is approximately 240 leet per day, <md effective porosity
is about 0.20. Using these values (!l'om the Jones and Henry repott, 2001) the
natural velocity of gf()llndwater flow outside th~ capture 70ne is computed to b~
:;. () feet per day. or I, J 14 teet per year. Withi n t he capture lone, I he velocity of
the warcr due to pumping is added to this tigure to increase the velocjty even
more
The land elcvati(lll itt wells #10, 11 Clnd 12 is approximately 745 feet The static
(non-pumping) water-table depth ranges tl'OIl1 about 10 to 13 feet below the
surtace and fluctuates with recharge Thickness of the aquifer which sits on
limestone at \Vell I J, the easternmost well in the capture 70ne, is 58 feet with the
elevation of irs bottom at 687 tCCI. The diameter of t he well is J 6 inches and the
well screen through which water flows fi.om thc aquifer imo the well, extends
from a deplh or 38 feel to the bottom over a 20-1001 length. lhe pumping water
level in Well 1 J is presently around 42 feet If'om the surface.
Th~re is also an old well <)00 feet cast of Gray Road that could be a source or
contamination direCTly into The aquifcI'. If it is not in l1~e. it should be capped or
u
2
. AUG 02,2004 12: 33
7655676210
Page 3
u
bCllCf' still. plugged ,,,,ith cement or other acceptable sealant in accordancc with
IDN"R and IDEM rules.
According to the Schneider Report. Manin-I'vlarictta plans to expand its mining
opcration north or r.. I061h Street and east of Gray Road, known as the Carmel
Sand Surface Aggrcgate Pit (hcrcaller knowJl <IS the N0I1h 'lit), t() the south and
west of its present border so that its western border will overlap the capture zone
()f\Vells 10. II and 12 The company admits that it will be mining thc aquifer
Thc 200 I Joncs and Henry report shows the 5-year capture zone extending ~76
feet cast of Well # II, the easternmost well, Martin Mariclla proposes tll mine
beginning :~4S feet east of this wel L which is ~31 feet inside tht' capturt' zoot',
by expanding the NOl1h Pit.
The company al:;o plans to expamJ northward the Open "'it mining operation south
0'- E. 106111 Strect and cast of Gray Road (known hereafter as the South Pit). This
will bring the north horder of the pit to \vithin 2S0 feet of E. I (16th Strcet and
o'\"f,olaIJping tht' south border of the capture zone of Wells I 0, II, and 12 hy
IJerhaps 30 feet.
o
I n the southwest quadrant of the intersection or Gray Road and E. 106111 Street,
Marrin-Marietta owns (l fonncr sand and grav~1 pond (hereafter know as the Wcst
Pit) that is prescntly used to collect water from pumping from the South Pit
operation ~outh nrE IOti,I'Street. This water is purported to cntcrlhc grnulld and
~llpply additional recharge Wthe capture zone sustaining or elcvating the
groundwater e1evatiun ill the arel1. This practice should 5top because or the
potential for contamination within thc capture Lone if the South and/or West Pits
arc or should become contaminated
Modeling r<.~sults trom the Schneider Report predict that the dry-season water
level in the North Pit will be 7221. feet in elevation OJ' approximately 5 to 7 feet
belo\\ their estimate or the static \vater tahle due to pumping from the cxpanded
North Pit. We believe tha.t it will bl~ greater. The report also stmes that hiSTOrical
wlIte."-tahle fluctuations in the '.area" (non-specific) have been (,.S frrt. The
report goes 011 to mention that projl~cted pumping from the SOllth Pit will
probahly lower the regional water Table another '"few additional feet.. (again,
nO'l-S,)eciJic). Due::> this st.itement imply an additional :,or 5 or J 0 j(X~t") The
answer is indeterminatc from thc report.
\Vater pumped from the active pits into the \Vcsl Pit will add additional v..ater to
the aquiter Thl~ Schlll~ider Corp. report mentions that the natural ilow of'
groundwater will be (1ltered to tlow more directly into the expanded and active
pits.
()
From earlier pumping-lcst records, the report goes on Tn state that the drawdown
cHccts from pumping will extend f()r 1,500 teet This calculation apparently
.~
AUG a2,2004 12:33
7655676210
Page 4
u
ignores (he well-head capture LOne f()f Wells J O. J J and J 2 and the clIccts of
pumping Ii'om this lllne. In fact, at no place in the report are the well-head
studies and determinations of this capture zone as detenllinect hy Jones flnd 'Icory
engineering, I.td even mentioned The Schneider model. from what I hav~~ bl~l~T1
anle to determine, app.m~ntly did not disl~()ver them or considcr thclll.
The planned expansion oCthe mining operations as described in the Schneider
Corp rcpoll should not he allowed for two major reasons I) potential :lquifcl"
dewatel'in~ and 2) potential a(luifer contamimllioll as dis~ussed below.
POTENTL\L AQUIFER DEW ATE lUNG
u
Information IT"Om the wen site of the US Gcological Survey (LSGS) shows that
during the p(~riod t'.Onl 1999 102000 the water level during pumping in Well i.i 11
had dropped to 4S or 49 feet from the surliH.:e or about 6 to 7 teet below its prcscnt
levcl of about 42 rect ( J 6 feet above the noUom) This was during some dry
periods in which water 1I~(' was prohably higher than usual and redlarg~ Irom
pr~cipitution was nelow normal. If thc prcdi\.~led wah~r-table drop th.1m pumping
thc cxpand~d North Pit will be a minimum of 5 - 7 feet. and pumping the South
Pit \\.jll drop the \...aler level a "few additional feet'\ it will invariably cause the
\vatcr Ievcl in the pumping well 10 drop considcrabl)' below 42 feet and helow
the dry-wratht'r histoticallevels of 48 or 49 feet. Such a sCfllario would
cause thr pumping water lelier in Well #11 to prohably drop to within 9 feet
or less from the bottom of the well. This is too close to complete dcwatcrin~
of' the well.
An additional troubling l~ll.;t is the lack of calibration o1"(hc Schneider model. It
was impossible to do so becausc there was no historicul water-lcvel data with
which to compare results from thcir modeled s~eJl(lJi(). .rhis, in additioll to the
fact that the \\icll-head protection capture 70nes werc apparently not cHnsidered.
ca~ts very serious doubt on the reli.lbility of the Schneider Illodel and its resuhs.
Without calibration and consideration of the capture ~OJle, the potential error can
be and probably is, quite ~ignitkant. Therefore, the potential for (~\'('n larger
d":n\'downs than those ..eporled is serious caus(' for alarm: especially during
dry weather, the aquifer could potentially bc dcwatered at th~ (iruy Road Water
Plant
rhe propo"ecl expanded 1l1ining al:llvities are planned tor approximately 14 years
into the future. As more water is demanded t()r municipal and domestic uses. the
capture Lone around Wells # I O. I I and 12, will likely expand to allow morc water
to come into the wells. This will cause even more overlap of the pits with the
capture 70ne In addition, additional pumping to meet demand wi1llower the
pumping waleI' kvels in the wells evenl11orc. Obviollsly, $erious potential
problcms call arise with lowering of the water tablc by pumping {i'orn the pits.
u
4
'AUG 02,2004 12:33
7655676210
Page 5
u
POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION
A gravel pit sitting directly over the deepest pan or a capture zone v,'here the
hydraulic gradients arc greatest can allow potential contamination 10 enter the
well from the pit. Some contamination from fuel and oil and perhaps other
chemicals will be li~e1y to enter the aquifer during the mining process if there is
such cOll\8minatiotl in the pits and/or in their contained water.
Above-ground storage tanks can also leak into the ground and the dIluent can
movc to the aquifer. Such tanks often contain oils and fuels as well as other
chemicals.
Gravel pits have long been used It)r clandestine dumping of trash and ha:lardous
wastes Typical materials dumped indude old hatteriescontaining lead, TCE
(trichloroethylcne). oil. diesel fuel; solvents, paints, thinners and other volatiles,
pesticides. fertilizers ~~oJltaining nitrate and phosphatc. and lawn ami garden
c.twmicals in addition to industrial chemicals.
u
Dense Non-I\queous Phase Liquids (DNAPI.'s) arc those that are heavier than
waleI' and will sink to\\'ard the hottom of an aquifer and will be drawn to the well
irllake screen, di~s(ll\'ing somewhat in the water as they descend. Light Non-
Aql.\e()\l~ Phase I.iquids (I.N APL' s) tloat on the watcrtable and also dissolve
somewhat in the watcr. Both kinds oflllaterials have low solubilities in .....ater but
enough to otten exceed l'vfPC (nlaximulll permissible conc~ntratitlns) TeE is a
DNAPL and the well tields of l.afayette. Indiana have had two contamination
t~VCllts li'oTTl TCt:: in the last 18 years. One of the events was probably cal1~ed hy
clandestine dumping upgradient from a city well. The city had to take a well off
the line in each event blxause iltakes only 5 ppb ofTCI~ in the pumped waler to
shut down a well. III this case it is helieved that the contaminant spike comprised
only a few gallons. It is very costly to rcmcdiate such a scenario.
Olher wl1tarninants might include some heavy metals from the gravels that ar('
stirred up and abraded agili"$1 ~adl tlther during the mining process. Lead is
known to exist in the mineral structure or igneolls gravels, but it is not very
soluble Creating smaller grains hy ahrading larger ones will increase the surface
area t'()r solution and thus, the greater amount of heavy metals in the waler. Thi:-;
may bl~ a millOI' pwblern, but noteworthy ncverthelcss.
According to the Jones and I Icnry rl..~ports (1994 and 20(1), the recharge (i'oIllthe
surt~lce to the subsurface is about 12 inches of water per year If the porosity is
0.20, the intiltrating tront will move ahout 5 feet per year downward under natural
condiTions This means that wilter from the surface, undl~r natlllal recharge
conditions, can reach the water table at IO-feet dcpth in 2 years.
u
An additional problem is the lack t1fan aquila,'d between the proposed mine pit
and Ihe aquifer below it. This lack of a barrier will allow li'ee movement of
s
'AUG 02,2004 12:33
7655676210
Page 6
~)
contaminants downward from the pit to the water table should any be in the pond
water.
A1h-r mining ceases and if the pit iill~ \-\lith water, a large ponet of surface water
next to and overlapping the deepec;t par1 of a capllJrc I.(,)ne will provide un easier
source or waler lor the wdls. As a result, the wells will then pump more water
into them from the pond and less from the groundwater upgradicnt from the \\'ells
thallunder present pre-mining conditions. Irthe surlitce water is contaminated.
this will only illcre,lse the risk ofwlltamillatillg the aquifer and the water pumped
Ii-om it.
i'inally. the T-WORD (TERRORISM) should be considered as a potcntialthreat
IOlhc groundwater supply. Although the probability of such a ris!.; is small, it is
present, especially since September 1 L 200t. In light of national concern about
drinking-water safety since t.hat date; tw(,)large conferences Oil terrorism and
water supplies have been held of which I am aware
u
Surface water can be spiked with poisons and chemicals and it call gel into
pumping wells in such a scemlrio as a pond sitting ov~r the capture zone. It might
take some efrort, but it is po~sjhle, It would not likely cause imnlediate death or
health problems, bur could over time calise deaths. sickness and removal or
contaminated well!; f.-om service Again, this is not a highly-probable risk, but
onc that should be considered because even the detection of small conc.entrations
of introduced poisons could cause panic among the water users. This too. is a
goal of terrorists.
Recently, the news rcpOl1ed the hijacking ofa tnIck-toad of so diu III cyanide
(NaCN) in Mcxico Although most of the load was rccovered. a considerable
amount was missing when the truck was t(1und. It is possible that someone or
some group plans to LIse it for poisoning drinking wat~r somewhere
In a well-head protection plan submi!lcd to the IDf::l\l cities and towns must
inventory and describe all potential sources of contamination in their capture
zones. 1 do n()t know if this wa$ done ic>r the capture 70nc around The Gray Street
Plant If not. it should be don~. Onen, the J1)F.l\11ik(,~s to have lond citizens who
Lise the water actually take pan in such an effort
The purpose or the Well-Head Protection Act is to allow cities and towns to find
ways of protecting their drinking-wat~r sources. The planned mining activities
are inconsistent with such safeguarding principles.
u
I and my students perlt)n1\ed the well-hean study fOf the tOW!l of Battle (iround.
Indiana. In addition to the required 20n.lcet sanitary setback around th\.~ "....ell:>. we
also enclosed [he computed capture 7.0no for [he two pumping centers with an
additional buffer zone of 500 feet in width to protect the capture /.onc Ii'om
surface contaminants.
6
'AUG 02,2004 12:34
7655676210
Page 7
CD
This action was predicaled upon the po:ssibilily of surface runutf getting into the
capture ~onc area, and was deterTnined from the Topographic maps oflhe area that
showed wherccrceks cfO$!icd the area and where the slopt~S w'crt' positiom:'d to
allow contaminants to discharge onlO the (apluJ'e-L()T1~ surlltce. Similar i1criclns
would be tt very good idea t()r the Gray Road Plant capture Lone and others as
wdl.
Shonly aile!" we subrniued the repOI1 and capture-zone delineations to the Water
Conservancy Hoard, a local prOpCl1y owner petitioned the Area Planning
COlllmission to allow him to open a s"mll gravd pit upgradient from the \\lclls and
\\lithin the capture Lonc The Commission studied nur report and found the
proposed site to be \vilhin the capture 70ne They promptly rcru~ed him a permit.
CONel,lfSIONS--
I) The Schneider Model is of highly-questionable reliability (:onsidering the lack
of calibration (al) j Il1possiblc task) and the lack of i npul regarding the tapture
lOne. Thcrc1(m~, drawdown ofthe aquifer due to pumping lhe pits will probahly
he greater than predicted
o
::n Pumping oCthe pib will change the present groundwater 110w patterns and
directions loward the piTS rendering useless the computed capture zone for
determining groUlHhvater flow directions within the ;lone.
3) l'(lJ1(lt'd water over the capture zone attcr mining ceases wi II allow even
greater possibilities lor potelltial contamination to reach the aquifer and wt:'lls than
during dewatering during the mining phase
4) l\lartin-Murietta should not be allowed to eAJ)cUld their uJl(~nltions into thr
capture Lone as disrussed ilho\'e Their planned activities \\.iIJ push the
envelope of safety too tar to be consistent with safeguarding public waler supphes
Ii'om the :standpoints of both quantity and quality. and will defeallhe whole
purpose and results or mandaled well-head protection cftons.
Please contilct me if you WClI1t more detail or if something is unclear I ex~)ect to
hear more details from you about our planned meeting for the HZA hearing
TuesdClY evening, May 2S.
o
Sincerely, f"
~~C ........-..
Lj,,/ . . ,L1../L (_' . .,
Darrell l.eilp. I'hl) t__, - .- C~ C- (~. (J
I.icensed Pmtcssional Geologist (Indiana), 1\"0. 51~
Registered Prnfessionalllydrogcologi:st, (Am. Inst of Hydrol ). No.]CJ)
7
o
u
The Mundell Letter
()
V MUNDELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
429 East Vermont Stree( Suite 200, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202-3688
Phone: 317-630-9060, Fax: 317-630-9065, €mail: info@MundellAssociates.com
August 4, 2004
Kingswood Homeownners Association, Inc.
C/o Philip C. Thrasher
Thrasher Buschmann Griffith & Voelkel, P.C.
151 North Delaware Street, Suite 1900
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Re: Review of Application for Special Use Approval
Mueller Property South Sand and Gravel Operation
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Carmel, Indiana
MUNDELL Project No. M04024
Dear Mr. Thrasher:
Q
Pursuant to your recent request, MUNDELL & As SOCIA TES, INC. (MUNDELL) is pleased to present
to you and the Kingswood Homeowners Association, Inc. (KWHOA) this evaluation of potential
concerns associated with groundwater pumpage from the proposed operations of the above-
referenced facility. This letter briefly summarizes our technical understanding of the proposed
development, and discusses areas of concern related to groundwater pumping, well field capacity and
wellhead protection.
Technical Understanding
It is our understanding that the application for special use approval calls for the construction of a
sand and gravel extraction on the 97-acre South Mueller property south of 1 o 6th and east of Gray
Road in Carmel, Indiana. Mineral extraction is expected to take place on about 55.9 acres, with the
permit encompassing 61.9 acres. The construction includes the relocation of Blue Woods Creek
south of 106th street in order to operate the facility.
Currently, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MMMI) operates an open pit limestone mine south of
106th street between Gray Road and Hazel Dell Parkway. The proposed mining at the South Mueller
property would expand the sand and gravel and limestone mining ofthis existing operation. MMMI
reportedly pumps about 6.4 million gallons per day (MGD) of water at its Indianapolis North Plant,
which includes inflow from the adjacent sand and gravel aquifer, surface water runoff and seepage
from the bedrock aquifer. Of this total, approximately 4.8 MGD is estimated to be from
groundwater inflow from a perimeter drain system at the existing quarry pit located at the base ofthe
upper sand and gravel above the limestone bedrock surface. MMMI pumps this 4.8 MGD of
groundwater to a pond (an inactive former quarry pit) to the northwest of the current quarry pit. This
pond is hydraulically connected to two other ponds via culverts. These three ponds also receive
v
s:\m04024 kingswood mining evaluation\bzaissues.doc
o
o
u
MUNDELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Au~ust 4, 2004
water from surface water flow from Blue Woods Creek which flows into and out of the ponds.
Revised Wellhead Protection Zone - Plant 4
Based on recent groundwater flow modeling of the area completed by Wittman Hydro Planning
Associates, Inc. (WHPA) in June 2004 for the City of Carmel (WHPA, 2004), it is apparent that a
significant amount of water (approximately 51 to 55 % by volume) pumped by the Plant 4 wells
comes from the northernmost of the three ponds used for water storage by the current MMMI mining
operations. As such, these ponds are clearly within the 5-year capture zone for the current mine
conditions. In addition, if it is considered that the mine is suppling the majority ofthe water to the
ponds, and the ponds are the primary source of water for Plant 4, it can be concluded that the mine
itself should actually be considered to be within the 5-year capture zone and therefore governed by
any wellhead protection rules or ordinances that are implemented by the City.
Under the proposed Mueller Property South operating conditions, WHP A found that the amount of
water supplied to Plant 4 by the mine increases to 70 to 77 % by volume during average conditions,
and to 83 % for 'dry' conditions (i.e., low precipitation or drought type conditions). Therefore, the
mining groundwater contribution to Plant 4 increases significantly over current conditions. For the
same reasons stated previously, the new operations could also be considered to be within the 5-year
capture zone for Plant 4 since the dewatering water contributed to the ponds from the new mine will
reach the wellfield within a 5-year time period.
These recent modeling results by WHPA confirm the vulnerability of the wellfield water quality to
potential contamination from mining operations, should it ever occur. Because of this, MMMI
should be required to submit a full hydrogeologic assessment, including its own groundwater
modeling assessment in order to confirm the WHP A modeling results and provide adequate
protection for the Plant 4 wellfield. IfMMMl's results confirm the vulnerability of Carmel's Plant 4
wellfield to the proposed future mining operations, the proposed mining operations should be
regulated to enforce proper operational controls (e.g., employee training, chemical storage and
chemical fluid transfer within secondary containment areas, water withdrawal documentation, water
level and water quality monitoring, and contingency plan development) within a wellhead protection
ordinance or similar regulatory vehicle in order to minimize the potential for water quality impacts
to the City's drinking water supply.
Reduced Plant 4 Pumping Capacity
The June 2004 study completed by WHP A also indicated that the proposed pumping for the Mueller
Property South would decrease the total wellfield capacity by about 15 % by volume, over the
current mining conditions. During extreme dry conditions, this reduction in well field capacity
would be greater than 15 %. Based on these results, it is apparent that the proposed mining
operations will reduce the effectiveness of the Plant 4 wellfield, and result in the City of Carmel
needing to look elsewhere for that capacity in the future when demand exceeds system capacity. A
properly developed wellhead ordinance could address constraints on future development and
business operations that are shown to reduce the capacity ofthe City to provide drinking water to its
residences.
s:\m04024 kingswood mining evaluation\bzaissues.doc
2
o
~(J
Q
MUNDELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
AUJ?ust 4, 2004
Subsidence Potential- Groundwater Withdrawal and Blasting
Due to the proximity of the proposed mining operations to nearby residents, it is also recommended
that further evaluation of the potential for ground subsidence due to the combination of additional
groundwater dewatering and blasting be completed prior to special use approval. Based on our
experience with evaluating mining operations in similar geologic conditions with nearby structures,
including business and residential dwellings, the potential exists for ground subsidence to occur as a
result of planned activities. This is the result ofthe collapse of existing karstic features (e.g., voids
and solution features have been observed in boring logs in the area)within the upper bedrock from
the increase in pressures due to dewatering and blasting. Should collapse(s) occur, they have the
potential to propagate to the surfce as a result of the overlying sand outwash material dropping into
the collapsed location. Additional characterization ofthe upper bedrock surface (e.g., drilling and
coring program, geophysical surveys, visual observation documentation with the existing quarry) in
the vicinity of both the mine and the nearby residential area would allow for an evaluation to
determine the actual potential for this phenomenon to occur in the general area.
Summary
Prior to approving a special use approval request, it would be prudent for additional study results to
be required ofMMMI, including the completion of the necessary hydrogeologic work and modeling
to confirm its plans. In addition, the development of an effective wellhead protection ordinance
prior to any approval would provide the needed regulatory control of operations that have such a
high potential to impact the City's water supply.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information to you. If you should have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 630-9060 or jmundell@MundellAssociates.com.
Sincerely,
MUNDELL & AsSOCIATES, INC.
a..~
Jo n A. Mundell, P.E., L.P.G.
sident/Senior Environmental Consultant
s:\m04024 kingswood mining evaluation\bzaissues.doc
3
;'